Kelly Chilton v Michael Payne
[2024] EWHC 451 (Admin)
Surena Masih & Anor. v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust
26 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1280 (KB)
High Court
A family sued a hospital for negligence after their relative died. The hospital admitted a mistake but said the mistake didn't cause the death. The judge agreed with the hospital, and the family's appeal failed because they didn't prove the hospital's mistake caused the death.
Key Facts
- •Andrew Masih Mattu died in New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton on 8 January 2016 after a cardiac arrest.
- •His family sued the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust alleging negligence.
- •The Trust admitted breach of duty by not transferring Andrew to ICU from 5 January 2016.
- •Claimants initially argued hypoxia caused the cardiac arrest, but later abandoned this and claimed continuous ECG monitoring in ICU would have prevented death.
- •The trial judge dismissed the claim.
- •The appeal focused on whether continuous ECG monitoring would have prevented the cardiac arrest and whether resuscitation in ICU would have saved Andrew's life.
Legal Principles
Appeals are reviews of lower court decisions; generally, no new evidence is heard unless it meets specific criteria (Ladd v Marshall).
CPR rule 52.21 and Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1489 (CA)
Challenges to findings of fact require a high threshold; the appellate court defers to the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility and evidence.
Henderson v Foxworth [2014] UKSC 41; Grizzly Business v Stena Drilling [2017] EWCA Civ. 94; Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings [2023] EWCA Civ. 191; Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
The burden of proof rests on the claimant to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's negligence caused the harm.
Not explicitly cited, but inherent in negligence claims.
In assessing expert evidence, the judge considers various factors including qualifications, consistency, impartiality, and response to cross-examination.
Phipson on Evidence
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's findings of fact and assessment of expert evidence were not plainly wrong or irrational. The claimants failed to meet the burden of proof on causation.
Judge's preference for Dr. McCrirrick's evidence over Dr. Bristow's upheld.
The judge provided sufficient reasons for preferring Dr. McCrirrick's evidence, based on factors such as clarity, consistency, and response to cross-examination.
Claimants' late shift in causation argument unsuccessful.
The change in argument, coupled with lack of supporting evidence and failure to recall witnesses, weakened their case.