§ PUBLISHED JUDGMENT · 2023

Shaw v Maguire

[2023] EWHC 2155 (KB)·High Court (King's Bench Division)·25 August 2023

A skin sample taken in 2007 was reported as benign but in fact showed melanoma, which was only picked up in 2009 and caused the patient's death in 2014. His widow issued proceedings over five years late after her first solicitors let the case drift, and the court allowed the claim to proceed.

Outcome

Claimant succeeded

Sum stated in judgment

Not stated

Claim type

Cancer Misdiagnosis & Delayed Diagnosis

Decided

Liability decided at trial

G
ClaimGavel Assistant
● Online · Cancer Misdiagnosis & Delayed Diagnosis · 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: A consultant pathologist

Injury: Malignant melanoma reported as benign in 2007; later advanced metastatic melanoma causing death in 2014

Specialty: Histopathology / dermatology · England

§ WHAT THE COURT SAID

In the judgment’s own words.

“Accordingly, it would be equitable to allow this action to proceed by directing that ss. 11 and 12 of the Limitation Act 1980 shall not apply to this claim.”

The money

No damages figure appears; this was a preliminary trial of the limitation issues only.

§ WHY IT MATTERS

What this case shows.

The clock can start later than the mistake itself, because it only runs once you know the injury is serious. Delay caused by former solicitors rather than by the claimant is far less likely to defeat a late claim, especially where the original slides and reports survive.

About cancer misdiagnosis & delayed diagnosis claims →

§ MORE CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS & DELAYED DIAGNOSIS JUDGMENTS

Claimant succeeded

Wilma Agnes Cullen v Dr Ruth Henniker-Major

[2024] EWHC 2809 (KB)·2024·Damages assessed at trial

A GP saw Ms Cullen three times over five weeks with a persistent cough, sore throat and tiredness but did not make an urgent cancer referral; her laryngeal cancer was diagnosed at stage III about three months later. Liability was admitted, and the trial dealt with disputed care costs and the defendant's allegation that she had been fundamentally dishonest, which the judge rejected.

A delayed cancer referral claim turns on what extra treatment the delay caused; here the admitted delay meant chemotherapy, a total laryngectomy and neck dissections that earlier diagnosis would have avoided. Social media posts relied on to allege dishonesty were found not to contradict her evidence.

Claimant succeeded

Cripps v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

[2024] EWHC 615 (KB)·2024·Damages assessed at trial

The trust admitted that a misreported smear delayed the diagnosis of cervical cancer, and the claimant, who lost her fertility through treatment, asked for a further interim payment to fund surrogacy abroad. The judge refused because the evidence was not yet complete enough to be confident a trial judge would allow that cost.

Even with liability admitted, an interim payment will only be ordered for sums the court is confident will be recovered at trial. Whether overseas surrogacy costs are recoverable depends on a reasonableness test decided on full evidence.

Claim failed

Dalton v Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

[2019] EWHC 832 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial

A 38-year-old woman with a hard breast lump had a mammogram and ultrasound that looked benign and was discharged without a biopsy; cancer was found in 2013. Yip J accepted that a responsible body of breast surgeons would not have biopsied on those findings.

Triple assessment does not always require a biopsy where imaging is reassuring. A later cancer diagnosis does not by itself prove the earlier clinic decision was negligent.

All cancer misdiagnosis & delayed diagnosis 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.