This claim arises out of the tragic death of John Jones QC (Mr Jones) on 18 April 2016 at the age of 48. His wife and his children, then aged 8 and 6, are respectively the first, second and third Cs… At the time of his death Mr Jones was a voluntary inpatient at the Nightingale Hospital (the hospital) in London under the care of D. Claims in negligence against the hospital and against Dr Bakshi, a second consultant psychiatrist at the hospital, were settled a few days before trial without admission of liability. Only the claim against D proceeded to trial. [1]
Cs allege that there were deficiencies in the care provided by D to Mr Jones and, but for those deficiencies, his mental health would not have deteriorated to the point where he took his life. Cs contend that with appropriate treatment, Mr Jones would have recovered from his illness, he would have returned to full time practice as a barrister and would have continued to expand upon his successful career. At trial, liability and, in large part, quantum were in issue. [2]
J made a number of criticisms of D three of which amounted to findings of separate breaches of duty in respect of his clinical care of Mr Jones. J dismissed the claim against D upon the basis that the breaches of duty did not cause or contribute to the death of Mr Jones. [3]
J noted that he was at “a significant disadvantage” because Dr Bakshi had not given evidence, he had not been asked to read any witness statement provided by her, no such statement was tested in cross-examination which made it more difficult to determine what handover took place between the two psychiatrists at the hospital and it also prevented J from assessing the merits or demerits of care provided to Mr Jones at the hospital while D was away. [31]
J observed that on the facts of this case it was possible to decide on the balance of probabilities whether death would have occurred in the absence of breaches of duty and thus the material contribution argument was unnecessary. [49]
As a matter of fact, J’s findings were properly founded upon the evidence and led to findings in law which are legally sound [77]
There is nothing in any of these findings by J which begins to provide a factual basis for the material contribution argument upon which the appellant is now seeking to rely and which is contrary to settled authority. [80]
…dismissal of appeal… [81]
medicalnegligencenow.com 