§ PUBLISHED JUDGMENT · 2017

The Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust v De Meza

[2017] EWCA Civ 1711·Court of Appeal (Civil Division)·10 November 2017

A man treated in the early 1980s sued in 2014, saying no one followed up his hormone condition until a new doctor restarted treatment in 2011. The Court of Appeal found he had known enough back in 1983 and that a 28-year delay had destroyed the records needed to defend the case.

Outcome

Claim failed

Sum stated in judgment

Not stated

Claim type

Clinical Negligence

Decided

Appeal decision

ClaimGavel Assistant

● Online · Clinical Negligence · free & confidential

FREE

Free · confidential · not legal adviceEngland

§ WHAT HAPPENED

The facts, in brief.

Defendant: The Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and a consultant endocrinologist

Injury: Years living with an untreated hormone condition after testosterone treatment was stopped and never reinstated

Specialty: Endocrinology · England

§ WHAT THE COURT SAID

In the judgment’s own words.

“I would allow the first defendant's appeal and strike out the claim against the first defendant as statute barred.”
[2017] EWCA Civ 1711 at [30] · read the full judgment

The money

No damages figure appears; the appeal decided only whether the claim was brought too late. The claim against the second defendant had already failed and was not appealed.

§ WHY IT MATTERS

What this case shows.

Where very long delay means the records that would show what actually happened no longer exist, the court will usually hold the claimant to the deadline. Realising only years later that better treatment existed does not by itself restart the clock.

About clinical negligence claims →

§ MORE CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE JUDGMENTS

Claimant succeeded£550,000

Alexander v HCA International Limited & Anor

[2026] EWHC 1284 (KB)·2026·Liability decided at trial

A patient developed life-threatening pancreatitis after a gallstone-removal ERCP. The judge found the consultant never prescribed or instructed the standard preventive diclofenac suppository, so it was not given, and entered judgment for £550,000 against him.

Failing to give a recognised prophylactic drug before a procedure can be negligent even in private care. The prescribing doctor, not the hospital, carried the liability here.

Claim failed

O'Brien v Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Trust

[2022] EWHC 2735 (KB)·2022·Liability decided at trial

A man with end-stage kidney failure was given a single 400mg gentamicin dose for a chest infection and suffered permanent balance and hearing damage. His sister's claim failed because the judge accepted that a high dose was a reasonable choice for a worsening infection with sepsis risk, despite his renal impairment.

A drug dose that causes known side-effects is not automatically negligent if it was a reasonable clinical judgement in the circumstances. Departing from a hospital guideline is not itself proof of negligence.

Claimant succeeded

Plan v El-Amir & Anor

[2020] EWHC 2902 (QB)·2020·Liability decided at trial

A 79-year-old with macular degeneration was persuaded to have an intraocular lens implant in her better eye without proper informed consent, then developed raised eye pressure that the surgeon left untreated for five weeks. Stacey J found the surgeon negligent both in consenting and in delaying laser treatment, causing total blindness in that eye.

Private eye surgeons must obtain genuinely informed consent and act promptly on post-operative complications. A delay that materially contributes to permanent damage is enough for liability even if some harm had already occurred.

All clinical negligence 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.