Skip to main content

Local authority fails in bid to recover costs from NHS

London Borough of Islington v University College London Hospital NHS Trust - (Queen's Bench Division - 23 July 2004)

The claimant local authority that had incurred care costs of more than £81,000 following a stroke suffered by Mrs J, sought to recover these costs from the defendant NHS Trust.

Mrs J, who suffered from rheumatic mitral value disease, was due for surgery and was advised to stop taking an anticoagulant, Warfarin, a week before the operation. The operation was cancelled and she was told by the surgeon's secretary not to resume taking the Warfarin. Consequently, she suffered a stroke that resulted in her being taken into care by the claimant under the National Assistance Act 1948. Liability was admitted by the defendant to Mrs J and a structured settlement entered into.

Under the Act, the claimant was bound to disregard the compensation payment when calculating Mrs J's liability to pay. The claimant argued that the defendant had escaped liability to pay the care costs because Mrs J's means were such that she had to rely on local authority care. The claimant sought to recover those costs from the defendant based on pure economic loss.

It was held that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer damage. Neither the local authority or the NHS trust had knowledge or means of knowledge to realise that Mrs J would be unable to pay for her care. The proximity test also failed as there was no relationship between the claimant and the defendant at the time of the advice. The court was satisfied that there was no public policy requirement to expand the law of negligence. The court found in favour of the defendant.

Comment: This was a failed attempt by the local authority to recover its economic loss of care costs incurred following a stroke suffered by an NHS patient, for which the trust was culpable. It would be a matter for parliament to create a statutory scheme to allow recovery in these circumstances. Liana Jahrig, BLM Birmingham.

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@postonline.co.uk or view our subscription options here: https://subscriptions.postonline.co.uk/subscribe

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@postonline.co.uk to find out more.

Storm damage claims test insurers’ settlement choices

A year of severe storms has strained repair networks and claims operations, which Ben Blain, head of property at Verisk Claims, points out has placed insurers’ settlement decisions, data oversight and ability to evidence fair customer outcomes firmly under the regulatory spotlight.

How should success of FCA’s response to Which be judged?

The effectiveness of the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory action in response to Which’s super-complaint about home and travel insurance is reflected in smoother claims handling, not in the number of reviews or fines, according to Claire Massey, founder of Claim Guardians.

Most read articles loading...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have an Insurance Post account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here