By an application dated 4 February 2025 D to this claim has sought three remedies. As against C, he seeks summary judgment pursuant to CPR Part 24 on the ground that the claim has no reasonable prospect of succeeding. His secondary application, pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(b), is that I strike out the C’s Schedule of Loss on the basis that it is likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. Finally, D has made a separate application for Wasted Costs against R, who are the C’s former solicitors. I am asked to consider stage 1 of that application whether the Respondent should be required to show cause why an order should not be made. [1]
On 24 July 2019 C underwent a hip resurfacing procedure. D was the consultant orthopaedic surgeon who conducted the operation. He performed that surgery to a reasonable standard but unfortunately the repair to C’s abductor muscle failed post-operatively. Despite further interventions, C has been left with persistent weakness and restricted movement. He was an accomplished skier and has not been able to return to anything like that level. Skiing was not simply a cherished activity for the C, he made a living out of it. [2]
D’s application for summary judgment is refused. [43]
D’s application to strike out C’s schedule of loss therefore succeeds in part. [59]
D’s application for a wasted costs order against R is dismissed [75]
medicalnegligencenow.com 