Philipa Hodgson v Dr Daniel Hammond & Anor

Damages in a clinical negligence claim must provide full compensation while remaining fair, reasonable and just to all parties. In assessing general damages for pelvic inflammatory disease, chronic pelvic pain, sexual dysfunction, fertility consequences and surgical complications, the court should use the Judicial College Guidelines as guidance without forcing the claim into a single category. The assessment may draw on more than one relevant category and must reflect the totality of the injury. Future treatment and care claims are recoverable where they are more likely than not and reasonable, but awards must avoid double-counting uncertainty and must exclude speculative expenditure.

The claimant brought a clinical negligence claim against two general practitioners arising from delayed diagnosis and treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease. In an earlier judgment, Hodgson v Hammond & Dieleman [2025] UKHC 1261 (KB), the court found both defendants liable in negligence, with causation undisputed.

This judgment determined quantum. The issues included general damages for chronic pelvic pain, dyschezia, dyspareunia, fertility consequences and past and possible future surgery; the reasonableness of adhesiolysis, pelvic clearance and IVF; and claims for care, therapies, travel and other expenses.

1. General approach. Full compensation had to remain fair, reasonable and just to the claimant and defendants. The court assessed the consequences of the delayed treatment as a whole, including chronic pelvic pain, dyschezia, dyspareunia, two laparoscopies, likely future pelvic clearance, damage to fertility, IVF-related pain and expense, and the increased risk of ectopic pregnancy.
2. General damages. The claim should not be treated solely as a chronic pain case, since that would undercompensate the claimant. Nor was the reproductive-system chapter of the Judicial College Guidelines unavailable merely because the claimant was sub-fertile rather than infertile. The court used the relevant categories and preamble as guides, together with the chronic pain guidance, rather than placing the claim within one bracket. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity were assessed at £94,000, with interest of £5,358.
3. Future treatment. The evidence of the fertility expert was preferred. It was more likely than not that the claimant would not conceive naturally within the first year of trying and that IVF would then be reasonable. The court awarded the cost of one three-cycle IVF treatment, allowing for uncertainty once through the assessment of likely timescales and avoiding double-counting. An award was also made for likely pelvic clearance, but not for adhesiolysis. The risk/reward balance for adhesiolysis was decisively adverse in this claimant’s unusually complex case, and any such treatment would more appropriately be considered through the NHS specialist multidisciplinary service.
4. Other losses. Claims for therapies and future childcare during flare-ups were not proved as reasonable or probable. Limited awards were made for travel, miscellaneous expenses and future care following pelvic clearance. Total damages excluding interest were £126,251.95.

This was a first-instance quantum judgment. The court referred to its earlier breach-of-duty judgment in the same litigation, [2025] UKHC 1261 (KB), which found both defendants liable in negligence.