Case comments This case concerned C seeking declaration as to the scope of the obligations of the contract between the parties (not including the consultants). C underwent private surgery at D private hospital. The dispute between the parties was whether D was contractually liable for the acts and omissions of the consultants. C's position [...]
Case comments Clinical negligence claims are fact specific; the interest often arises out of the facts rather than the application of established principles of law. The interest in this case arose out of the occurrence of ischaemic colitis "as an albeit rare but known complication from the taking of NSAIDs" to control dental pain. [...]
Case comments Clinical negligence cases are often complex – the application of uncertain legal principles to detailed medical facts. In this case, breach of duty was not in dispute; the issue before the court was causation. It is trite to say negligence is breach of duty causing injury – the task before the court [...]
This case - like so many clinical negligence cases - was cases decided on it own facts. The issues were wide ranging and there were fundamental disputes of fact. The judgment provides a helpful checklist to aid the resolution of factual disputes (at paragraph 53). The central issue concerned the management of diverticular disease [...]
The central issue in this case was limited and discrete. It concerned an allegation of breach of duty: D breached its duty of care by failing to identify cauda equina syndrome during the radiological review of an MRI scan. The test of breach of duty is two stage: (1) what happened? and (2) did [...]
