Kadir v Mistry & Ors

Kadir v Mistry & Ors

The judge was correct to refuse damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity as the claimant failed to prove the deceased suffered more than she would have in any event, but erred in refusing damages for mental anguish, as evidence supported an inference that the deceased feared her life had been curtailed by negligent late diagnosis.

Parties
Applicant: Kadir; Respondent: Mistry & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on pain and suffering; allowed on mental anguish.
Legal Topics
Clinical Negligence, Quantum of Damages, Pain and Suffering, Loss of Amenity, Mental Anguish, Fatal Accidents, Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kadir

Applicant

Mistry & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity should be awarded to the estate of the deceased
  2. 2 Whether damages for mental anguish due to apprehension of early death are recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct to refuse damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity as the claimant failed to prove the deceased suffered more than she would have in any event, but erred in refusing damages for mental anguish, as evidence supported an inference that the deceased feared her life had been curtailed by negligent late diagnosis.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on pain and suffering; allowed on mental anguish.

Orders

  • No award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.
  • Award for mental anguish to be determined on remittal.