A Cautionary Read: Poor Pleadings, Non-compliance and the Automatic Disapplication of QOCS - Georgina Pressdee, Temple Garden Chambers
19/08/25. Read v North Middlesex Hospital Trust [2025] EWHC 1603 (KB).
On 5 August 2025, Master Thornett handed down judgment in Read v North Middlesex Hospital Trust [2025] EWHC 1603 (KB), a clinical negligence claim arising from two A&E attendances in late 2016. The decision addresses the strict pleading requirements for such claims and the scope of automatic QOCS disapplication under CPR r44.15.
Issues
The issues for the High Court to determine were:
- Whether the Claimant had complied with the terms of an unless order requiring him to file and serve Amended Particulars of Claim (APOC) providing further and better particulars of breach of duty and causation.
- Regardless, whether the APOC should be struck-out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a)/(b).
- Whether CPR r44.15 is confined to Claims struck-out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a)/(b) or extends to other grounds including CPR 3.4(2)(c).
Background
Facts
The Claimant attended the Defendant’s A&E on 30 November 2016 after a fall. He left after four hours without being seen. On 4 January 2017 he returned. On this occasion, he alleged that the treating doctor failed to perform a clinically acceptable standard of examination, leading to his discharge with a misdiagnosis. He alleged that absent this negligence, he would have undergone an MRI, his condition would have been properly diagnosed, and appropriate treatment would have commenced, avoiding or lessening the neurological damage he later suffered. The Defendant’s records indicated voluntary discharge on both visits. He re-attended on 6 January 2017 and underwent...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/chrisdorney
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
