King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

QB-2022-002633 - [2025] EWHC 2576 (KB)

Fecha: 29-Oct-2025

Revised issues

Revised issues

40.

The remaining issues that the Court must resolve can now be reformulated as follows:

(i)

Whether there had been a breach of duty by D in failing to provide C with reasonable post-operative care from the point immediately following the gastroscopy and before the balloon dilatation;

(ii)

Whether there had been a breach of duty in proceeding with the balloon dilatation;

(iii)

Whether the breach(es) of duty caused injury or damage to C.

41.

In practical terms, this reformulation rather blends the remaining breaches of duty together to form the two sides of the same decision by D. The question now is whether it was a breach of duty for D (i) not to pause immediately post-gastroscopy and set in motion a MDT approach involving the dietitian and psychotherapist and/or (ii) then to proceed with the balloon dilatation. The causation issue (iii) remains live and in dispute in respect of (i).