Butler v Ward [2025] EWHC 877 (KB) (10 April 2025)

Butler v Ward [2025] EWHC 877 (KB) (10 April 2025)

The claim for lack of informed consent raises factual disputes that cannot be resolved without hearing oral evidence from the claimant and defendant; the claimant has a realistic prospect of success and the case is not suitable for summary judgment. The claim for loss of earnings is incoherent, unsupported by evidence, and its continued pleading would obstruct the just disposal of proceedings, warranting strike out. No prima facie case for a wasted costs order against the respondent solicitors is established, as the claimant's case is not hopeless nor an abuse of process.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 877 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Simon Butler; Defendant/applicant: Mr David Anthony Ward; Respondent: Spencer West LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Interlocutory Application (summary Judgment, Strike Out, Wasted Costs)
Outcome
Defendant's application for summary judgment refused; application to strike out schedule of loss succeeds in part; application for wasted costs order 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Simon Butler

Claimant

Mr David Anthony Ward

Defendant/applicant

Spencer West LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Interlocutory Application (summary Judgment, Strike Out, Wasted Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant gave informed consent to the hip resurfacing procedure under Montgomery principles
  2. 2 Whether the claim for loss of earnings should be struck out for being incoherent and inadequately pleaded
  3. 3 Whether a wasted costs order should be made against the claimant's former solicitors

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for lack of informed consent raises factual disputes that cannot be resolved without hearing oral evidence from the claimant and defendant; the claimant has a realistic prospect of success and the case is not suitable for summary judgment. The claim for loss of earnings is incoherent, unsupported by evidence, and its continued pleading would obstruct the just disposal of proceedings, warranting strike out. No prima facie case for a wasted costs order against the respondent solicitors is established, as the claimant's case is not hopeless nor an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Defendant's application for summary judgment is refused.
  • Claimant's claim for loss of earnings is struck out.