Legal News

Clinical negligence trials—gambling on experts, remotely (Jones v Ministry of Defence)

Clinical negligence trials—gambling on experts, remotely (Jones v Ministry of Defence)
Published on: 06 July 2020
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Clinical negligence trials—gambling on experts, remotely (Jones v Ministry of Defence)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background of this case?
  • What did the court decide?
  • The experts
  • Damages
  • Anonymity request
  • The remote hearing
  • Case details

Article summary

Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence analysis: In May 2020 Richard Hermer QC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) embarked on one of the first High Court clinical negligence trials to be held remotely. Mr Jones, a serving soldier in the British Army, was diagnosed with HIV. The case concerned the medical consequences of a ten-month delay in diagnosis. The Ministry of Defence, being responsible for his medical care, accepted it had breached its duty of care and was liable to compensate Mr Jones for the ill health he suffered during that ten-month period. Ashley Croft, a Consultant Public Health Physician, gave evidence for Mr Jones. The judge rejected his evidence on causation far preferring the analysis of Professor Ross, a Consultant Physician and Professor of Sexual Health and HIV. The principles governing anonymity in the context of a remote but otherwise public hearing were also reviewed. Written by Bryan Thomas, clinical negligence barrister, at Civitas Law, Civil Barristers Chambers, Cardiff. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents