|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Webb v Liverpool Womens' NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC 449 (QB) (01 April 2015)
Cite as:  EWHC 449 (QB),  3 Costs LO 367
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY
Leeds LS1 3BG
B e f o r e :
| MISS COURTNEY WEBB (BY HER LITIAGATION FRIEND MISS STACEY KEIRA PERKINS)
|- and -
|LIVERPOOL WOMENS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Mr B Martin for the Defendant
Hearing date: 29 January 2015
Circulated to Parties in Draft 18 February 2015
Handed Down 1 April 2015
Crown Copyright ©
a. That, during the labour of the claimant's mother (who is her litigation friend), the need for a Caesarean section was indicated at about 13.50 hours on 25 October and on no less than 3 occasions thereafter but, negligently, no Caesarean section was performed and instead the defendant negligently decided that the birth should be allowed to proceed to a vaginal delivery. (The First Limb)
b. That the vaginal delivery itself was negligently managed because the midwives undertaking it failed to adopt recognised procedures to deal with the shoulder dystocia that the claimant suffered in the course of the vaginal delivery. (The Second Limb)
Agreed concessions regarding the consequences of Part 36
A proportionate order?
a. An issues based (or proportionate) costs order need not be confined to exceptional cases. The extent to which costs should be disallowed should be left to the evaluation of the judge "by reference to the justice and circumstances of the particular case".
b. The reasonableness of taking failed points can be taken into account
c. There is no automatic rule that an issues based order should be made because the successful party loses on one or more issues and indeed the mere fact that such a party was not successful on every issue cannot, of itself, justify an issue based costs order. This is so because in complex litigation including complex personal injury cases any winning party is likely to lose on one or more issues in the case.
a. failed to put the claimant into the McRoberts position,
b. applied fundal, as opposed to suprapubic, pressure
c. applied excessive traction.
The Part 36 Offer
Conclusion as to Costs
HH Judge Saffman