Michelle Prudence v Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 24, summary judgment may be entered on a discrete issue, including an issue falling short of the ultimate questions of duty, breach or liability.

Where a party has no real prospect of succeeding on that issue, the court must consider whether there is another compelling reason for the issue to be disposed of at trial rather than separately. The mere interaction between the issue and other matters is insufficient where those matters arise from hypothetical or unpleaded cases. If no compelling reason exists, granting summary judgment is not discretionary.

Two employed midwives appealed from a Master’s refusal to enter summary judgment on an issue arising from the alleged negligent delay in transferring a mother and newborn baby to obstetric care. The Master found that transfer should have occurred by no later than 5.50am, but declined summary judgment because questions remained concerning the timing and nature of any later emergency transfer and the claimants’ involvement.

The defendant accepted on appeal that it had no real prospect of succeeding on the issue that, but for its negligence, the claimants would not have been involved in the transfer which allegedly caused their injuries. The central question was whether there was another compelling reason for that discrete issue to be determined at trial.

1. The appeal was allowed and summary judgment was entered on the issue that, but for the defendant’s negligence, the claimants would not have been involved in the transfer which allegedly caused their injuries.

2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 24, the court may give summary judgment on an issue where the respondent has no real prospect of succeeding and there is no other compelling reason why the issue should be disposed of at trial. The second limb concerns whether the discrete issue should be tried with the remainder of the case, rather than whether there will be a trial of the proceedings overall.

3. Relevant considerations include the relationship between the issue and the remaining matters and whether separating it would create practical difficulty. They do not justify refusing judgment where the supposed interaction depends on possible cases that form no part of the defence.

4. Once the defendant accepted that its negligence had caused the claimants’ involvement in the transfer, and advanced no positive case that another transfer would have involved them, there was no compelling reason to defer determination. Granting summary judgment was therefore not a matter of discretion.

5. The order did not determine the claimants’ remaining case concerning the duty owed to them, breach of that duty, or their contention that they were primary victims.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): allowed the claimants’ appeals from the Master’s refusal to grant summary judgment and made the order sought in the Notices of Appeal.