Dear all,
In
Wright (A Child) v Cambridge Medical Group [2011] EWCA Civ 699, the EWCA (Elias LJ dissenting) allowed the appeal of the claimant against the decision of the trial judge, who had held that, although the defendant had been negligent in its treatment of the claimant, the negligence had not caused the claimant's loss.
The facts can be summarised very briefly as follows (adapted from Elias LJ's judgment): the claimant, who had contracted a bacterial super-infection which seeped into her hip, ought to have been referred by the defendant (her GPs) to a hospital on the Wednesday; in fact, in breach of duty, she was only referred to the hospital on the Friday evening. Had appropriate steps been taken by the hospital at that time, permanent damage to the hip would have been avoided. However, she was not given the appropriate antibiotics and by the Sunday it was probably too late. Accordingly, by the time the consultant at the hospital saw the claimant on the Monday, nothing could be done to prevent permanent injury.
Negligence by the defendant being accepted, the main question was one of causation, and the above facts threw up the vexed questions common to these sorts of multiple and/or successive tort cases, such as whether the hospital's negligence (assumed, because the hospital was not a party to the proceedings) broke the chain of causation, whether the claimant's damage was too remote to be recovered from the defendant, whether the claimant's damage could be said to be divisible, whether the claimant could claim for a loss of a chance of better treatment etc.
The judgment is long and complex, partly as a result of the inexplicable decision not to join the hospital as a party to the proceedings, but also because of the difficult issues involved.
Kind regards,
Colin