§ 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

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.

Claim failed

Philippa Caroline Deakin-Stephenson v Nebil Behar and Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

[2024] EWHC 2338 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial

Admitted with perforated diverticulitis, the claimant had a laparoscopic washout and deteriorated about 36 hours later, needing an emergency Hartmann's procedure with a stoma and intensive care. She alleged she had asked for a colorectal referral, was improperly moved to private care and was not properly consented, but the judge found none of this proved and dismissed the claims against both the surgeon and the trust.

Consent disputes turn on evidence of what was actually discussed; where the records and the surgeon's account show the alternative procedure was explained, a claim based on inadequate consent is likely to fail.

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.