Bradbury & Ors v Paterson & Ors
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE FOSKETT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Health Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case discusses the procedural and financial complications in litigation involving Mr. Ian Paterson, accused of negligent surgeries. The judge addressed the discharge of the Official Solicitor as litigation friend due to funding issues, setting out steps to reassess Mr. Paterson's capacity and secure costs for representation to allow litigation to proceed.
Judgment
Mr Justice Foskett:
Introduction
The application before me raises a novel point about what the Court should do when the Official Solicitor concludes that he can no longer continue to act as litigation friend for a protected party in litigation because the anticipated source of funding for the Official Solicitor’s costs ceases to be available.
The problem has arisen in this high profile and sensitive litigation in which former patients of Mr Ian Paterson are suing him and those for whom he worked for damages arising from alleged negligent surgery for breast cancer carried out by him from the 1990s onwards. The background was the subject of an independent review commissioned by the 3 rd Defendant (see paragraph 5 below) by Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, whose report was published on 19 December 2013, and a further review (the ‘Verita Review’) commissioned by the 2 nd Defendant (see also paragraph 5 below) which was published (or, at least, partially published) on 4 March 2014.
It is not necessary or indeed appropriate to go into that background in a detailed way for present purposes other than to note the identities and interests of the parties involved in this litigation and to note that, whilst there are 5 named claimants involved in the present application, they represent but a very few of the total number of claimants who have notified claims arising from Mr Paterson’s treatment of them at various times.
Mr Paterson is himself a defendant in the various actions launched to date and I will return to his status in the litigation in due course (see paragraphs 8-16 below). Since 29 October 2012 Mr Paterson has been suspended from practice by the General Medical Council having been suspended previously by both defendants.
At times material to the treatment giving rise to the various claims, Mr Paterson was employed at Solihull Hospital as an NHS Consultant (as a Consultant General, Breast and Vascular Surgeon) by the 3 rd Defendant, the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (‘HEFT’), but most, if not all, of the alleged negligent treatment was carried out by him privately at the Parkway Hospital in Solihull or Little Aston Hospital, which at the material times were operated by BUPA, but are now operated by Spire Healthcare Limited (‘Spire’) to which any potential liabilities of BUPA have been transferred.
As I understand it, some of the patients upon whom Mr Paterson operated had been referred to the Parkway Hospital by him in his capacity as an