§ PUBLISHED JUDGMENT · 2026

Dickinson v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

[2026] EWHC 1574 (KB)·High Court (King's Bench Division)·29 June 2026

A 37-year-old alcohol-dependent man admitted for a facial abscess was not given the prophylactic vitamin B1 (Pabrinex) that guidelines required during withdrawal, which the Trust admitted was a breach. The judge found this caused Wernicke's encephalopathy and a lasting functional disorder, and set the main heads of damages including a 24-hour care regime.

Outcome

Claimant succeeded

Sum stated in judgment

Not stated

Claim type

Brain & Spinal Surgery Negligence

Decided

Liability and damages decided at trial

G
ClaimGavel Assistant
● Online · Brain & Spinal Surgery Negligence · free & confidential
FREE
TELL US WHAT HAPPENED — TYPE HERE

Start typing — your likely claim, value and time limit appear here.

Describe what happened (a sentence or two) to begin.

Free · confidential · not legal adviceEngland

§ WHAT HAPPENED

The facts, in brief.

Defendant: Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · this trust’s claims data

Injury: Wernicke's encephalopathy from thiamine deficiency, followed by a disabling functional neurological and cognitive disorder; profound physical disability, cannot walk, life expectancy reduced to 63.5

Specialty: Acute medicine / Alcohol withdrawal management · England

§ WHAT THE COURT SAID

In the judgment’s own words.

“but for the admitted breach of duty, the Claimant would not have developed the functional disorder”

The money

No total stated: the form of award (lump sum or periodical payments) was left for the parties to agree after judgment. Figures decided: PSLA £185,000 ([273]); past care £140,000 ([277]); future care multiplicand £104,936.83 for year 1 then £248,843.40 per annum ([286]). Claimant's pleaded lump-sum claim was £5,820,292.71 ([5]); defendant's counter-schedule £1,641,938.16 ([260]).

§ WHY IT MATTERS

What this case shows.

Breach was admitted, so the case turned on proving the brain injury was caused by the omission rather than by pre-existing conditions. It illustrates how catastrophic-injury awards are built from a care multiplicand, case management and accommodation rather than a single headline figure.

About brain & spinal surgery negligence claims →

§ MORE BRAIN & SPINAL SURGERY NEGLIGENCE JUDGMENTS

Claim failed

Hakmi v East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust & Anor

[2025] EWHC 2597 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial

An orthopaedic surgeon had a second stroke and the on-call stroke consultant, assessing by telephone because the video link was broken, decided against clot-busting treatment. The judge found documentation was poor but that thrombolysis would probably not have changed the outcome, and rejected the defendants' allegation that the claimant had faked his test results.

Poor record-keeping and a remote consultation do not win a case on their own; the claimant must show the missed treatment would have made a real difference. A defence of dishonesty needs solid evidence and failed here.

Claimant succeeded

Dee v Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust & Ors

[2023] EWHC 2765 (KB)·2023·Damages assessed at trial

A man who fell from a scooter in May 2019 alleged the ambulance crew and the A&E department failed to recognise and immobilise a spinal injury, manage his blood pressure or protect him from pressure sores. On an interim payment application the Master was satisfied he would succeed on the hand-function and pressure-sore injuries and ordered £109,006.96.

Where the evidence of breach and causation is strong, a court can order a substantial interim payment before trial to fund immediate needs, even though the final award remains to be decided.

Claim failed

Shally v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust

[2023] EWHC 1304 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial

During surgery for a giant calcified thoracic disc the surgeon changed from the planned approach to opening the dura, and the patient was left partially paralysed. The judge found the change of approach and the surgical technique were supported by a responsible body of neurosurgical opinion and dismissed the claim.

Changing surgical plan mid-operation is not negligent where the alternative is a recognised, logical approach. Catastrophic outcomes from high-risk spinal surgery do not by themselves establish a breach of duty.

All brain & spinal surgery negligence judgments →

Contains information licensed under the Open Justice - Licence v2.0. Judgments from Find Case Law, The National Archives. Summaries are ours; amounts only where printed in the judgment.

This guide is general information about the law in England and Wales, not legal advice about your case. ClaimGavel is run by Costart Projects Ltd on behalf of Tomlin & Partners, a specialist medical negligence firm regulated by the SRA. The free assessment on this page is an AI overview to show you roughly where you stand; a solicitor confirms the position in a free, no-obligation conversation.