§ PUBLISHED JUDGMENT · 2017

Mossa v Wise

[2017] EWHC 2608 (QB)·High Court (Queen's Bench Division)·19 October 2017

A woman who had vaginal tape surgery in 2007 sued in 2015, saying she was never properly told about the product or the alternatives. The surgeon had died by then, but the court allowed the late claim to proceed and the High Court refused to interfere.

Outcome

Claimant succeeded

Sum stated in judgment

Not stated

Claim type

Urology & Catheter Injury

Decided

Appeal decision

ClaimGavel Assistant

● Online · Urology & Catheter Injury · free & confidential

FREE

Free · confidential · not legal adviceEngland

§ WHAT HAPPENED

The facts, in brief.

Defendant: The estate of a consultant gynaecologist

Injury: Erosion of vaginal tape causing bleeding and pain, leading to corrective surgery, hysterectomy and ongoing symptoms

Specialty: Gynaecology / urogynaecology · England

§ WHAT THE COURT SAID

In the judgment’s own words.

“In those circumstances, I conclude that he properly exercised his discretion and there is no basis for interfering on appeal.”
[2017] EWHC 2608 (QB) at [27] · read the full judgment

The money

No damages figure appears; the hearing concerned limitation and costs only.

§ WHY IT MATTERS

What this case shows.

A late claim can still go ahead even where the doctor has died, if independent records and expert evidence mean a fair trial is possible. The court weighs the harm to each side rather than applying the deadline mechanically.

About urology & catheter injury claims →

§ MORE UROLOGY & CATHETER INJURY JUDGMENTS

Claimant succeeded£195,888

Biggadike v El Farra & Anor

[2024] EWHC 1688 (KB)·2024·Liability and damages decided at trial

The patient had a hysterectomy, pelvic floor repair and incontinence tape fitted by one consultant, then mesh removal and a colposuspension by a second consultant. The court cleared the first surgeon but found the second performed the colposuspension without clinical justification, leaving the patient with severe bladder symptoms.

Performing an operation that is not clinically justified is a breach of duty even if it is technically done well. Damages are limited to the harm caused by the negligent procedure, not the patient's pre-existing symptoms.

Claim failed

Dalchow v St George's University NHS Foundation Trust

[2022] EWHC 100 (QB)·2022·Liability decided at trial

After routine day-case removal of a scrotal cyst, the claimant returned in the early hours in severe pain; intravenous antibiotics were not started when they should have been and an ultrasound request was delayed, and he was later diagnosed with Fournier gangrene, needing repeated surgery and losing both testicles. The judge found breach of duty but held the claimant could not prove the delays changed the outcome.

Proving that care fell below standard is only half the case: the claimant must also show the negligence made a difference. Where surgery would have happened at the same time anyway, delayed antibiotics or scans may not be shown to have caused the injury.

Claim failed

Devonport v Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust

[2016] EWHC 1729 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial

After a radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer the patient developed an abscess and a narrowed ureter, and later lost a kidney; she alleged the bowel was perforated at surgery and that urologists should have been involved in a second operation. The judge preferred the hospital's explanation for the infection and found no negligence in either operation.

Ureteric and kidney damage after pelvic surgery is not automatically negligent; the court will examine the most likely mechanism. Expert evidence on the cause of infection is often decisive.

All urology & catheter injury 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.