§ PUBLISHED JUDGMENT · 2017

Gallardo v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust

[2017] EWHC 3147 (QB)·High Court (Queen's Bench Division)·8 December 2017

After surgery at Charing Cross Hospital in 2001 the patient was never told his tumour was malignant or that he needed regular CT surveillance, and the cancer recurred undetected until 2010. The court found a continuing duty to inform him of his diagnosis and follow-up needs which the Trust failed to discharge.

Outcome

Claimant succeeded

Sum stated in judgment

Not stated

Claim type

Cancer Misdiagnosis & Delayed Diagnosis

Decided

Liability and damages decided at trial

ClaimGavel Assistant

● Online · Cancer Misdiagnosis & Delayed Diagnosis · free & confidential

FREE

Free · confidential · not legal adviceEngland

§ WHAT HAPPENED

The facts, in brief.

Defendant: Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · this trust’s claims data

Injury: Recurrence of a malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumour requiring major liver and portal vein surgery

Specialty: General surgery / oncology · England

§ WHAT THE COURT SAID

In the judgment’s own words.

“Taking account of all these factors, I have come to the conclusion that the appropriate figure for general damages is £27,500.”
[2017] EWHC 3147 (QB) at [112] · read the full judgment

The money

£27,500 general damages; further sums for loss of employment opportunity, medical expenses and additional surgery costs also awarded but no single total is stated

§ WHY IT MATTERS

What this case shows.

Hospitals must tell patients the result of their treatment and the follow-up they need; failing to communicate a cancer diagnosis and the need for monitoring is negligent.

About cancer misdiagnosis & delayed diagnosis claims →

§ MORE CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS & DELAYED DIAGNOSIS JUDGMENTS

Claimant succeeded

Wilma Agnes Cullen v Dr Ruth Henniker-Major

[2024] EWHC 2809 (KB)·2024·Damages assessed at trial

A GP saw Ms Cullen three times over five weeks with a persistent cough, sore throat and tiredness but did not make an urgent cancer referral; her laryngeal cancer was diagnosed at stage III about three months later. Liability was admitted, and the trial dealt with disputed care costs and the defendant's allegation that she had been fundamentally dishonest, which the judge rejected.

A delayed cancer referral claim turns on what extra treatment the delay caused; here the admitted delay meant chemotherapy, a total laryngectomy and neck dissections that earlier diagnosis would have avoided. Social media posts relied on to allege dishonesty were found not to contradict her evidence.

Claimant succeeded

Cripps v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

[2024] EWHC 615 (KB)·2024·Damages assessed at trial

The trust admitted that a misreported smear delayed the diagnosis of cervical cancer, and the claimant, who lost her fertility through treatment, asked for a further interim payment to fund surrogacy abroad. The judge refused because the evidence was not yet complete enough to be confident a trial judge would allow that cost.

Even with liability admitted, an interim payment will only be ordered for sums the court is confident will be recovered at trial. Whether overseas surrogacy costs are recoverable depends on a reasonableness test decided on full evidence.

Claimant succeeded

Shaw v Maguire

[2023] EWHC 2155 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial

A skin sample taken in 2007 was reported as benign but in fact showed melanoma, which was only picked up in 2009 and caused the patient's death in 2014. His widow issued proceedings over five years late after her first solicitors let the case drift, and the court allowed the claim to proceed.

The clock can start later than the mistake itself, because it only runs once you know the injury is serious. Delay caused by former solicitors rather than by the claimant is far less likely to defeat a late claim, especially where the original slides and reports survive.

All cancer misdiagnosis & delayed diagnosis 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.