The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Before :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE SIMON
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Between :
HLD
(by her mother and Litigation Friend KXD)
Claimant
-v-
MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Defendant
Henry Witcombe KC (instructed by Fieldfisher LLP) for the Claimant
Jonathan Holl-Allen KC (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the Defendant
JUDGMENT
__________________
WARNING: Reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
HHJ Simon :
This is an approval hearing in the case of - now officially - HLD, a child by her mother and litigation friend KXD versus the Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. HLD, her identity has now been anonymised by way of a separate order. She is 13 years of age, having been born on 21 June 2012.
Proceedings in this case were issued and served in July 2022. Breach of duty was admitted on 18 May 2023, but not causation, and that was upon service of the defence. However, following further investigation by the defendant liability was then admitted in full and judgment entered as far as liability was concerned on 23 October 2023.
A quantum trial was fixed for today but in the months leading to trial the defendant has made various offers to settle the case culminating in the order for which approval is sought from the court today. The parties, of course, are to be congratulated for the efforts and the work that has gone in to achieving a settlement. It is not always possible but when there is high level advice and support for the considerations that go into what are very detailed calculations then it is often possible, and it has been in this case, and as I say, the parties are to be recognised for the work that has gone in to produce the order for which approval is sought today.
The details of HLD’s antenatal period and birth are well known to the parties. I do not intend to rehearse them in detail but merely in brief. When HLD’s mother presented at 37 weeks’ gestation with a 48-hour history of absent foetal movement judged alongside what should have been viewed as concerning foetal heart cardiotocograph tracings, this should have led to a recognition that very urgent delivery was required.
Regrettably, this did not happen and action, taken by staff members of the defendant, served unfortunately to exacerbate the situation, and negligently delayed HLD’s delivery with the result that she suffered hypoxic-ischemic brain injury leaving her with four limb cerebral palsy and other conditions and/or impairments. The manifestation of these on a day-to-day basis is set out in detail in the confidential advice.
Despite the panoply of challenges the advice also gives a glimpse into the bright and special world that is HLD’s. What is clear, of course, is that whilst no amount of money can turn the clock back, it can ensure that HLD’s extensive needs will be properly provided for throughout her life and I have noted the experts’ opinions on this point which are relatively well aligned.
I have considered carefully the settlement figures for general damages, past losses, and future losses as set out in the confidential advice and the appendices and explained in detail and I approve those figures. I have considered the form of award and the reason for its adoption in this case and again, I approve the form of award agreed.
Mr Witcomb, King’s Counsel, and the legal team acting on behalf of HLD and her mother recommend the proposed settlement as in HLD’s best interests and I agree. It is also clear that KXD has thus far provided an impressive level of love and dedication to HLD which has allowed her to thrive even with her medical and physical challenges. This court does not underestimate the demands of providing such high-level care for HLD over the years, nor the positive impact of KXD’s selfless devotion on HLD’s quality of life.
It remains only to wish HLD, KXD and all their family very well for the future.
---------------
This transcript has been approved by the Judge