§ PUBLISHED JUDGMENT · 2013

Thomas v Curley

[2013] EWCA Civ 117·Court of Appeal (Civil Division)·26 February 2013

Mrs Thomas's bile duct was injured during keyhole gallbladder removal and the surgeon also failed to arrange fluid and kidney monitoring when she was readmitted unwell. The trial judge found both failures negligent and awarded £92,391; the Court of Appeal dismissed the surgeon's appeal.

Outcome

Claimant succeeded

Sum stated in judgment

£92,391

Claim type

Surgical Errors

Decided

Appeal decision

G
ClaimGavel Assistant
● Online · Surgical Errors · free & confidential
FREE
TELL US WHAT HAPPENED — TYPE HERE

Start typing — your likely claim, value and time limit appear here.

Describe what happened (a sentence or two) to begin.

Free · confidential · not legal adviceEngland

§ WHAT HAPPENED

The facts, in brief.

Defendant: Mr Paul Curley (consultant general and vascular surgeon, Methley Park Hospital, Leeds)

Injury: Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: seven litres of bile in the abdomen, emergency surgery and intensive care

Specialty: General / upper GI surgery · England

§ WHAT THE COURT SAID

In the judgment’s own words.

“This is an appeal against the order of Griffiths Williams J. dated 29 July 2011, ordering that there be judgment for the claimant in the sum of £92,391.00, in her action for medical negligence against the defendant.”

The money

Judgment for the claimant at trial in the sum of £92,391.00; surgeon's appeal dismissed on all grounds

§ WHY IT MATTERS

What this case shows.

Bile duct injury during gallbladder surgery is not automatically negligent, but a court can find negligence where the anatomy was recognised and the injury still occurred, and separately for inadequate monitoring afterwards.

About surgical errors claims →

§ MORE SURGICAL ERRORS JUDGMENTS

Claim failed

Tarrant v Monkhouse

[2025] EWHC 2576 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial

After a sleeve gastrectomy the claimant had trouble swallowing; the surgeon performed a gastroscopy and balloon dilatation, after which the sleeve leaked. The judge found no breach of duty in the post-operative care or the dilatation and dismissed the claim despite the very serious consequences.

A bad outcome after a recognised complication is not enough; the claimant must show the treatment decision fell outside what a responsible body of surgeons would do. Sympathy for the patient does not change the legal test.

Claim failed

Julia Tosh v Vivek Gupta

[2025] EWHC 2025 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial

The claimant developed anal stenosis after a private haemorrhoidectomy and argued her haemorrhoids had been over-graded, non-surgical options were not discussed and the stenosis risk was not explained. The judge found the grading was correct, alternatives were discussed and the risk was disclosed on the consent form and in the information leaflet, so the claim was dismissed.

Documented consent, including a signed form and a written leaflet naming the specific complication, can be decisive in defeating a Montgomery consent claim.

Claimant succeeded

MJF v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

[2024] EWHC 3156 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial

A young woman with cerebral palsy had a PEG feeding tube inserted and was found unresponsive two days later with peritonitis and sepsis. The judge rejected the doctor's account of how the tube was fixed, found it was placed under too much tension, and entered judgment for the claimant.

Where a clinician's recollection is unreliable and contradicted by the physical evidence, the court can find a procedure was done negligently. Causation may still be limited where a pre-existing condition would have deteriorated anyway.

All surgical errors judgments →

Contains information licensed under the Open Justice - Licence v2.0. Judgments from Find Case Law, The National Archives. Summaries are ours; amounts only where printed in the judgment.

This guide is general information about the law in England and Wales, not legal advice about your case. ClaimGavel is run by Costart Projects Ltd on behalf of Tomlin & Partners, a specialist medical negligence firm regulated by the SRA. The free assessment on this page is an AI overview to show you roughly where you stand; a solicitor confirms the position in a free, no-obligation conversation.