Clarke v Kalecinski & Ors [2022] EWHC 488 (QB) (08 March 2022)

This is a claim for damages for personal injury sustained during cosmetic surgery undergone by C on 7 January 2015. C who was born on 11 December 1985 claims against the surgeon who performed the breast and thigh procedures upon C, in Poland, and against the Noa Clinic, where the operations were carried out and she received pre-and post-operative treatment. She also sues PZU who is the insurer of the Clinic. They are respectively, the first, second and third defendants to the claim. [1]

C sues both the surgeon and the clinic, both in contract and in tort. She seeks to hold the clinic either directly or vicariously liable for the failures of the surgeons who treated her – one other Polish surgeon was involved in her care – and the nurses who cared for her at the clinic in Poland. [7]

The contractual claim is put on the basis of breach of a contract for the provision of breast augmentation and thigh liposuction and associated pre- and post-operative advice. [8]

C’s case is that the duty in tort was to the effect that the services provided would be to a standard recognised as proper by a responsible body of like qualified professionals at the time of the care and operation and the implied duty under her contract was to the same effect. [9]

I have no hesitation in concluding that the case of negligence is made out against both the first and second defendants. [100]

the third defendant is liable to the extent of the indemnity [limit]. [112]