Simon Paul Read v North Middlesex Hospital Trust

Simon Paul Read v North Middlesex Hospital Trust

The Amended Particulars of Claim did not comply with the November 2023 Order by failing to provide further and better particulars of breach of duty and causation, lacked specificity, and were unsupported by relevant expert evidence. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds and constituted an abuse of process, justifying strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b). QOCS protection is disapplied under CPR 44.15 as the substantive grounds for strike out fall within its scope.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Simon Paul Read; Defendant: North Middlesex Hospital Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Clinical Negligence / Judgment on Strike Out and Amendment Applications
Outcome
Claim struck out; Claimant's application to re-amend dismissed; QOCS protection disapplied.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Pleading Requirements, Expert Evidence, Causation, QOCS (qualified One Way Costs Shifting)
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Pleading Requirements Expert Evidence Causation QOCS (qualified One Way Costs Shifting)

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Simon Paul Read

Claimant

North Middlesex Hospital Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Clinical Negligence / Judgment on Strike Out and Amendment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Particulars of Claim comply with the November 2023 Order
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  3. 3 Whether the claim is an abuse of process or likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Particulars of Claim did not comply with the November 2023 Order by failing to provide further and better particulars of breach of duty and causation, lacked specificity, and were unsupported by relevant expert evidence. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds and constituted an abuse of process, justifying strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b). QOCS protection is disapplied under CPR 44.15 as the substantive grounds for strike out fall within its scope.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; Claimant's application to re-amend dismissed; QOCS protection disapplied.

Orders

  • Claim struck out for non-compliance with November 2023 Order and for disclosing no reasonable grounds.
  • Claimant's application for permission to rely on Re-Amended Particulars of Claim dismissed.