DWF recently acted on behalf of G4S Health Services (UK) Limited in a successful strike-out application based on ineffective service of the Claim Form and reliance on incorrect expert evidence. Gurion Taussig of Deka Chambers, instructed by DWF, represented the Defendant at the hearing. The Court struck out the claim in its entirety, finding both that the proceedings were procedurally invalid and that the manner in which the claim had been advanced amounted to an abuse of process. The decision offers a clear reminder of the importance of properly constituted pleadings, compliant procedural steps, and evidential coherence between expert opinion and the pleaded case.
Background
The claim arose from injuries sustained by the Claimant culminating in a comminuted fracture of the right tibial plateau. Following surgery, the Claimant was returned to HMP Altcourse, managed by the Defendant.
The central allegation was that the Defendant failed to arrange appropriate physiotherapy post-operatively.
Defendant’s application
During the course of the claim, it had become apparent that the Claim Form, originally issued in July 2024 against two Defendants, had been amended prior to service to add a Third Defendant. However, the Claim Form was neither properly endorsed to demonstrate the amendments nor verified by an updated Statement of Truth. The Defendant therefore applied to strike out the claim on the basis that there had not been effective service of the Claim Form.
The Defendant also maintained that the Claimant had not obtained appropriate expert evidence in support of the allegations made and that this was a further ground for strike out. The Claimant had served orthopaedic surgery expert evidence with proceedings and had stated that this was the only evidence they intended to rely on. At the time of preparing his report, the expert had not considered any of the prison healthcare records.
Claimant’s application
The Claimant made a cross-application for permission to amend the Particulars of Claim. Whilst the original Particulars of Claim asserted that no physiotherapy had been provided, the proposed Amended Particulars of Claim, amongst other proposed amendments, conceded that the Claimant had, in fact, received multiple physiotherapy sessions but maintained that appropriate treatment was not provided.
Decision
In striking out the claim, the Judge held that the Claim Form was fundamentally unclear and invalid due to the failure to properly endorse the amended version and provide an updated Statement of Truth. As a result, no valid service of the Claim Form had taken place and the Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the claim.
The Court also scrutinised the expert evidence relied upon by the Claimant. The Judge observed that the expert evidence appeared to address a materially different factual scenario to the actual position. The expert report proceeded on the basis that the Claimant required physiotherapy which had not been provided, which transpired not to be the factual position. The Court considered this disconnect significant. The expert evidence did not properly engage with the pleaded factual matrix and instead appeared to support a different case altogether. The Judge concluded that the manner in which the claim had been advanced, essentially without proper expert support, amounted to an abuse of process.
The claim was struck out and QOCS disapplied, with the Claimant ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs of the strike-out application and unsuccessful amendment application.
Key takeaways
This decision underlines several important reminders for practitioners:
- Validity of the Claim Form is fundamental: Failure to properly endorse amendments or update the Statement of Truth can render a Claim Form invalid.
- Service remains a critical gateway issue: Without valid service, the claim cannot proceed.
- Expert evidence must align with the pleaded case: A mismatch between expert opinion and the factual allegations can significantly undermine a claim.
Overall, the judgment demonstrates the Court’s willingness to take a robust approach to procedural non-compliance and improperly advanced claims, particularly where these defects go to the heart of the claim’s validity.
Further legal insights from the DWF Healthcare Team
- High Court rejects late causation amendment in CES delay claim
- Aesthetic injectables in Ireland
- Consent in cosmetic surgery and aesthetics
