Jamie Gamble recently successfully represented the Claimant in the case of Way v University Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust [2025] EWHC 1078 (KB).
This was a trial of the issue of liability in a clinical negligence claim with a potential value in excess of £1 million. It related to an allegedly negligently delay in listing the Claimant for surgery for a rectal prolapse as a result of which, it was alleged, she ended up needing emergency surgery and was left with a permanent stoma.
The trial was heard by His Honour Judge Harrison (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in the Cardiff District Registry of the High Court, who gave judgment for the Claimant. It was a notable decision because this was a ‘systems’ case that turned not upon what a reasonable time to surgery would have been in hospitals elsewhere in the country, but upon the implementation of the prioritisation system for patients being operated at the Defendant’s hospital at the time.
The parties’ colorectal experts disagreed about whether the Claimant should have been prioritised differently, with the Defendant’s expert giving evidence that the Claimant’s case would reasonably have been regarded as routine in most hospitals. However, the surgeon at the Defendant Trust who treated the Claimant accepted in evidence that he had requested that her treatment be “expedited” (an intermediate category of prioritisation between urgent and routine) and would have expected his administrative staff to have tried to fit an appointment for her in at an earlier than routine date when other appointments were cancelled.
The Defendant called no evidence from any administration staff to prove that this had occurred, and the judge found that on the balance of probabilities the clinical instruction to expedite the Claimant’s appointment was not followed due to the absence of a clear written policy, pathway or procedure for those who fell into the category of ‘priority’ rather than ‘emergency’ or ‘urgent’. This was therefore a breach of duty. As the judge said, “the system operated at the material time was simply not able to process efficiently a clinical priority whose care needed to be expedited”.
Further, whilst causation was “not a straightforward question”, the judge was persuaded on the balance of probabilities that but for the Defendant’s negligent failures the Claimant would have come to surgery at least two months earlier than the elective date she was given (and six weeks earlier than the emergency surgery that, in fact, occurred) and would have avoided emergency surgery, sepsis and a permanent irreversible stoma.
The Lawtel report of this case can be found here: Lawtel report
Jamie was instructed by Lisa Osborne of Thompsons Solicitors.
