§ PUBLISHED JUDGMENT · 2018

David John Saunders v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

[2018] EWHC 343 (QB)·High Court (Queen's Bench Division), Manchester District Registry·23 February 2018

Five days after surgery to reverse his ileostomy the 60-year-old claimant developed sepsis and his whole colon had to be removed because its blood supply had failed. He alleged the surgeon had damaged the marginal artery, but Yip J was not satisfied that the injury was caused by negligence rather than a naturally occurring clot.

Outcome

Claim failed

Sum stated in judgment

Not stated

Claim type

Surgical Errors

Decided

Liability decided at trial

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: Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Injury: Ischaemia of the entire colon and necrosis of the terminal ileum after ileostomy reversal on 20 March 2012, requiring emergency removal of the colon

Specialty: Colorectal surgery · England

§ WHAT THE COURT SAID

In the judgment’s own words.

“On the basis of all the evidence before me, the Claimant has not established that his injury was caused by negligence on the part of Mr Mazarelo.”

The money

Liability-only trial; claim dismissed. No figure stated.

§ WHY IT MATTERS

What this case shows.

A serious complication after bowel surgery is not itself proof of negligence; the claimant must show on the balance of probabilities that a surgical error, rather than an unavoidable event, caused the harm.

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.