Simon Butler v David Anthony Ward

Simon Butler v David Anthony Ward

The issue of informed consent is fact-sensitive and requires findings of fact based on oral evidence; summary judgment is inappropriate as the Claimant has a realistic prospect of success. The claim for loss of earnings is incoherent and inadequately pleaded, obstructing the just disposal of proceedings, and is struck out. The wasted costs application fails as the Respondent’s conduct does not meet the threshold for a wasted costs order and pursuing a non-hopeless case is not an abuse of process.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Simon Butler; Defendant: Mr David Anthony Ward; Respondent: Spencer West LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Wasted Costs Applications
Outcome
Defendant's application for summary judgment refused; application to strike out Schedule of Loss succeeds in part; wasted costs application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Wasted Costs, Expert Evidence
Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Informed Consent Summary Judgment Strike Out Wasted Costs Expert Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Simon Butler

Claimant

Mr David Anthony Ward

Defendant

Spencer West LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Wasted Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant gave informed consent to the hip resurfacing procedure
  2. 2 Adequacy of the consent process under Montgomery principles
  3. 3 Whether the claim for loss of earnings is properly pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The issue of informed consent is fact-sensitive and requires findings of fact based on oral evidence; summary judgment is inappropriate as the Claimant has a realistic prospect of success. The claim for loss of earnings is incoherent and inadequately pleaded, obstructing the just disposal of proceedings, and is struck out. The wasted costs application fails as the Respondent’s conduct does not meet the threshold for a wasted costs order and pursuing a non-hopeless case is not an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for summary judgment refused; application to strike out Schedule of Loss succeeds in part; wasted costs application dismissed.

Orders

  • Summary judgment application refused.
  • Claim for past and future loss of earnings struck out from Schedule of Loss.