Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital & Ors v DDM

Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital & Ors v DDM

The appeal was allowed because the High Court judge placed undue weight on the Defendants' non-response, failed to adequately scrutinise the significant and largely unexplained delays by the Claimant's solicitors, and did not give sufficient regard to the expiry of the limitation period and the strictness of the CPR...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital; Appellant/defendant: Gulf Medical Projects Company; Appellant/defendant: Dr Shama Nawaz; Appellant/defendant: Dr Ganu Naik; Appellant/defendant: Dr Fadia Suhail Alwan; Appellant/defendant: Dr Elham Ahmed; Defendant: Professor Noha Zaki; Defendant: International Radiology Centre; Respondent/claimant: DDM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; service of proceedings against First to Sixth Defendants set aside.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Limitation Period, Civil Procedure Rules, Wrongful Birth Claim
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Extension of Time for Service Service Out of Jurisdiction Limitation Period Civil Procedure Rules Wrongful Birth Claim

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital

Appellant/defendant

Gulf Medical Projects Company

Appellant/defendant

Dr Shama Nawaz

Appellant/defendant

Dr Ganu Naik

Appellant/defendant

Dr Fadia Suhail Alwan

Appellant/defendant

Dr Elham Ahmed

Appellant/defendant

Professor Noha Zaki

Defendant

International Radiology Centre

Defendant

DDM

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to uphold extensions of time for service of claim form out of the jurisdiction after expiry of limitation period
  2. 2 Whether further evidence should have been admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether delays by claimant's solicitors justified extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the High Court judge placed undue weight on the Defendants' non-response, failed to adequately scrutinise the significant and largely unexplained delays by the Claimant's solicitors, and did not give sufficient regard to the expiry of the limitation period and the strictness of the CPR regime. The evidence did not justify the second extension of time for service, and the proceedings against the First to Sixth Defendants were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; service of proceedings against First to Sixth Defendants set aside.

Orders

  • Service of proceedings against First to Sixth Defendants set aside.