Guernsey’s Royal Court has refused to allow a woman to appeal the decision to dismiss her medical negligence claim – saying she had no real chance of winning, and there was no public interest in continuing with the case.
The appeal dates back to 2023 but the circumstances relate to events prior to 2017.
The patient – Susan Cotterill – wanted to sue the Medical Specialists Group and Dr Ranjan Vhadra, claiming she had suffered as a result of his negligence during orthopaedic treatment she had received.
Dr Vhadra has not worked for the MSG since 2017 and has been in private practice since 2018.
Ms Cotterill launched her personal injury claim against the MSG and Dr Vhadra in March 2023, alleging negligence in the treatment of issues with her left hip joint.
In response, the MSG and Dr Vhadra argued that Miss Cotterill had “no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim” and that she had no real prospects of winning the case.
The defendants asked for a ‘summary judgment’, which is where a ruling is made without the need for a full trial.
Fionnuala A Connolly, Judge of the Royal Court, agreed with this, saying she had seen “clear and compelling agreed medical evidence…that manifestly undermined the Plaintiff’s claim”.
In February this year, Miss Cotterill sought to appeal that decision, saying she had not “had the benefit of the court being able to hear/see my witness statements, or those of my other witnesses, that could significantly increase the prospects of success at a trial”.
Judge Connolly said she had considered all of the evidence and stood by her initial decision that a trial was not necessary.
“I had not conducted a mini-trial but that I had carefully appraised and analysed the evidence in its totality including in particular the expert medical evidence that would be before the trial.”
That approach was consistent with what had been seen in other similar cases, she said.
Judge Connolly confirmed in writing to all parties in March that she was standing by her original decision and would not allow the case to proceed.
“I have given consideration to whether there is an issue which, in the public interest, should be examined by the Court of Appeal. Such cases are exceptional. I do not consider that any of the grounds raised by the Applicant should be examined by the Court of Appeal in the public interest. No question of general principle falls to be decided for the first time and there is no important question of law upon which further argument and a decision of the Court of Appeal would be to the public advantage.”
