Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin, editor of the UK Register of Expert Witnesses, examines Read v North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, where defective pleadings and unsuitable expert support proved fatal.
The claimant alleged failures in emergency treatment for a spinal injury but relied on a neurosurgeon and spinal surgeon rather than expertise addressing A&E assessment and procedures.
Despite obtaining representation and an opportunity to amend, he failed to particularise breach of duty and causation.
The claim was struck out, qualified one-way costs shifting protection fell away, and the defendant could recover costs.
Pamplin highlights the distinction between clarifying details and supplying a claim’s missing foundations: ‘A request for further information on an issue or issues is not the same as a request to a party to identify the fundamentals of their claim.’
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
