![[2025] EWHC 2025 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
The witnesses
The witnesses
I heard evidence from the claimant and defendant and from their respective experts. As regards the claimant and defendant, neither side accused the other of lying or giving deliberately misleading evidence. However, each side said that the other’s evidence was incorrect or mistaken in material respects. I do not have to resolve every difference or dispute between them – only those which are relevant to the issues I have to determine. This applies also to any differences between the experts’ respective opinions.
- Heading
- Ms Sarah Clarke KC Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
- Haemorrhoid grading system
- The issues to be decided in this trial
- Causation
- Burden and standard of proof
- Counsel
- The applicable law In Hunter v Hanley [1955] SC 200, at [204] (“ Hunter ”), Lord President Clyde held that: “…[a surgeon] is not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional men, nor b
- In Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583, at [587] (“ Bolam ”), Mr Justice McNair summarised the test as follows: “…[a surgeon] is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in a
- The House of Lords subsequently qualified the Bolam test in Bolitho v Hackney HA [1998] AC 232 (“ Bolitho ”), at [241H]-[242A] (Lord Browne-Wilkinson) by explaining that, “The use of these adjectives
- Consenting a patient to a procedure In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 , at [86] to [87] (“ Montgomery ”) the Supreme Court held in relation to the issue of appropriate consenting of a patient to a procedure
- Where the advice given by the doctor for the purposes of consent is informed by clinical judgment, the approach described in Hunter and Bolam remains applicable to that exercise of clinical judgment (
- Causation In Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 (“Chester”), the majority of the House of Lords held that causation will be established not only in respect of a patient who would have declined the surgery if prope
- Section 16
- The approach to witness evidence generally
- The witnesses
- The claimant
- The defendant
- Expert evidence
- The claimant’s expert witness – Mr Michael Thompson (“Mr Thompson”)
- The defendant’s expert witness – Professor Robin Phillips (“Professor Phillips”)
- Relevant facts, evidence and findings
- The defendant
- The claimant’s history
- The claimant’s appointment with the Private GP
- The GP’s referral letter
- The first consultation with the defendant
- Flexible sigmoidoscopy procedure
- The second consultation with the defendant
- The process of grading the haemorrhoids
- Advice on treatment options and risks of surgery
- The operation
- The operation note and findings
- Letter of complaint
- Causation
- Submissions
- The defendant
- Discussion
- Issues 2 - If the claimant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the defendant’s grading of her haemorrhoids as grade 2 / 3 was incorrect, then has the claimant established on the balanc
- Issues 3 - 4 – Causation
- Conclusions