Tait v Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 2958 (KB) (20 November 2024)

Tait v Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 2958 (KB) (20 November 2024)

The Defendant's defence is inconsistent with the judgment order to the extent that it pleads treatment for dysfunctional breathing from 2008 would not have been successful and that the injuries specified in the order (inactivity due to breathlessness, obesity, proximal myopathy, joint pain, wheelchair use) were not caused by the admitted negligence. The judgment order has determined that these injuries were caused by the breach, and the Defendant cannot now plead otherwise without amending or appealing the order.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2958 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Sophie Tait; Defendant: Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence / Post Judgment Interlocutory Application Regarding Consistency of Defence With Agreed Judgment Order
Outcome
Defence found inconsistent with judgment order to the specified extent; Defendant cannot plead that specified injuries were not caused by negligence.
Legal Topics
Construction of Judgment Orders, Admissions and Their Effect, Causation of Injury, Assessment of Damages, Variation of Court Orders
Tort Medical Negligence Construction of Judgment Orders Admissions and Their Effect Causation of Injury Assessment of Damages Variation of Court Orders

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sophie Tait

Claimant

Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence / Post Judgment Interlocutory Application Regarding Consistency of Defence With Agreed Judgment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's pleaded defence is inconsistent with the agreed judgment order regarding causation and injuries admitted to have been caused by negligence
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant can argue that symptoms specified in the judgment order were not caused by the admitted negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's defence is inconsistent with the judgment order to the extent that it pleads treatment for dysfunctional breathing from 2008 would not have been successful and that the injuries specified in the order (inactivity due to breathlessness, obesity, proximal myopathy, joint pain, wheelchair use) were not caused by the admitted negligence. The judgment order has determined that these injuries were caused by the breach, and the Defendant cannot now plead otherwise without amending or appealing the order.

Court Disposition

Defence found inconsistent with judgment order to the specified extent; Defendant cannot plead that specified injuries were not caused by negligence.

Orders

  • Defendant precluded from pleading that symptoms specified in paragraphs (x) to (xii) of the judgment order were not caused by the admitted negligence.
  • Defendant precluded from pleading that the correct diagnosis in 2008 to 2017 was not dysfunctional breathing.