header-logo header-logo

11 October 2018
Issue: 7812 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Hospital wait liability

An attempt to claim damages for brain injury over wrong information on waiting times given by a receptionist to a patient with a head injury has succeeded at the Supreme Court.

It was reasonably foreseeable that the patient, Mr Darnley, who was incorrectly told the wait would be four or five hours, would leave and his unannounced departure from the A&E department did not break the chain of causation, five justices unanimously agreed, in Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50.

Mr Darnley's lawyer, Deborah Blythe, partner and head of the Clinical Negligence team at Russell-Cooke said: 'This is the first litigated case in which compensation has been sought for injury caused by receptionists giving misleading information in an A&E department. The Supreme Court made it clear that this case should not be seen as an extension of the law of negligence but rather as requiring definition because of the novel facts.'

Tom Lax, senior solicitor, Bolt Burdon Kemp, said NHS trusts should have a policy of giving patients correct information on waiting times on arrival: 'The circumstance in this case will not make receptionists into victims of spurious “he said/she said” claims, but instead ensure that procedures are put in place, by responsible NHS Trusts around the country, to make sure that any person attending A&E will be given accurate information about waiting times when arriving at hospital (something that is very likely on the statistics to lead to people avoiding significant injury in the future).'

Issue: 7812 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll