PPX v Aulakh [2019] EWHC 717 (QB) (27 March 2019)

This is a claim for damages for clinical negligence brought by C… now aged 51 years old… Regrettably C suffered a serious neurological injury as a consequence of an attempted suicide by hanging on 20 May 2012… [1]

it is alleged that C’s General Practitioner D was negligent in the treatment afforded to C at a consultation on 25 April 2012. Further, it is said that if the treatment provided by her on that day had been of a proper standard, C would have been referred urgently to the local NHS mental health services, with the result that he would not have tried to commit suicide on 20 May 2012 and would have avoided his injuries. [2]

The rival cases crystallised to a single issue… if there were concerns about current suicidal ideation and planning, then this would mandate an urgent referral to the crisis team… The necessary corollary of this agreement was that if C had given a history of suicidal ideation and planning which was in the past, then urgent referral was not required… [24]

the central issue of fact which will determine breach of duty is whether C, on balance of probability, reported current or past suicidal ideation and planning at the consultation on 25 April 2012. [25]

C’s case just does not fit the evidence or the facts. It is inherently improbable. [45]

this claim which fails on breach of duty and causation. [55]