QB-2022-000824 - [2025] EWHC 1610 (KB)

The Claimant seeks £20,415.40.

To the extent the claim under this head relates to care following future adhesiolysis, this falls away.

In relation to future care following future pelvic clearance surgery, which is likely to be laparoscopic but may be open, the Claimant claims for an agency carer at 20 hours per week for 9 weeks, and a nanny for 8 hours per day for 9 weeks. Mr Raine-Fenning’s evidence is that she will require 5-7 days in hospital and then take 8 – 10 weeks to recover after pelvic clearance. Mr Magos says she is likely to be in hospital for no more than 5 days and fully recovered within 6-8 weeks. Of course the recovery will be easier if it is laparoscopic rather than open. I note that the Claimant had 16 hours of care per week for a week to 11 days, and returned to work after two weeks, for each of her previous laparoscopies, although for the first one she felt that was too early.

The First Defendant allows for 14 hours personal care per week for three weeks, but at gratuitous, not commercial, rates with a 25% discount against contingencies. He denies the claim for post-operative commercial childcare, but submits that if the Court finds she may undergo future surgery as a result of the Defendants’ negligence, and she does so at a time when she is likely to have children who remain dependent on her and need childcare, the First Defendant will allow 4 hours per day of gratuitous care per day for three weeks, with a 25% discount for contingencies.

The Second Defendant allows for 2.5 hours of personal care per day at commercial rates (although he reduces those to the East Sussex County Council’s self-funded home care costs of around £21 per hour which I think is less realistic than the Claimant’s agency costs of £25.27) for the first two weeks of recovery, then 1.5 hours per day for a further 2 weeks, then 7 hours a week for a further 2 weeks, and 3.5 hours per week for the final, 7^th, week of recovery. He allows nothing for childcare, submitting that no assistance will be required as the Claimant is unlikely to undergo this procedure whilst her children are young enough to need it.

I am satisfied on the evidence that I have heard about the Claimant’s mother’s health that she will not be providing gratuitous personal care or childcare in 16 years’ time.

The Claimant’s son is now 5 years old and in education, and so will be c. 21 by the time of the pelvic clearance. It seems to me to be more likely than not that whether he is at university or working, the surgery can be scheduled so that he is available to provide some gratuitous personal care and assistance with younger siblings, although possibly not for the full recovery period. It is more likely than not, in my judgment, that any following children who may be born would be at the youngest 8 years old (if they were born when the Claimant was 43) and the oldest 14 years old (if they were born in 2 years from now). I do not consider that any child over the age of 11 will require childcare, and nor do I consider that any child under 11 will need anything more than wraparound care for a few hours per day, say 1 hour in the morning and three in the afternoon.

Taking all of this into account, I will allow personal care for the Claimant (i) from an agency carer at 16 hours per week for the first three weeks at £25.27 per hour as sought, and (ii) gratuitous care at 10 hours a week for the following 2 weeks and 7 hours a week for the following 2 weeks, at a rate of £12.87 per hour less 25% being £9.65. I do not attach a contingency discount to this. I will allow gratuitous childcare at 4 hours per day at £12.87 less 25% being £9.65, but I will apply a 50% discount to this to account for the contingency that no childcare is required. I understand that the parties have agreed that this totals £2,262.95.

The Claimant also seeks the costs of childcare assistance during future flare-ups of her chronic PID at 8 hours per day for three days per year. Her evidence is that she has 2-4 episodes of acute pain per year, but in cross-examination she said that she had never needed to arrange for emergency care for her son during flare ups in the five years since he was born. It was put to her that if she did have difficulties with a school pick up etc, she would be more likely to call in a favour from a friend rather than arrange paid childcare and she did not disagree that was a possibility, but said “It would all depend on if they were working”. I do not consider that the Claimant has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that she will need paid childcare assistance for three days per years in the future, if she has not needed it in the first five years of her son’s life. She is likely to have more secure friendship groups and support to call on with a second child than with the first, not less in my judgment. I make no award under this head.