A GP and his practice appealed to the High Court after a Recorder refused to set aside default judgments in a clinical negligence claim, arguing their defences had real prospects of success.
Key facts
- Who: Defendants and claimants in a clinical negligence claim where judgment in default has been entered.
- From: Judgment of 23 June 2026
- Source: Kerry Lucas v Dr Osita Oranugo & Anor [2026] EWHC 1534 (KB)
Mr Justice Soole gave judgment in the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Birmingham District Registry, on 23 June 2026, after a hearing on 13 May 2026. The appeal was brought by Dr Osita Oranugo and Greyfriars Surgery, where he was a partner.
Background
Kerry Lucas alleges clinical negligence by Dr Oranugo, for which she says the surgery is also liable. Her claim form was issued on 19 May 2022 and her Particulars of Claim are dated 15 May 2023.
The claim centres on an appointment on 31 March 2017 about numbness on the left side of her face. She says Dr Oranugo failed to offer a neurology referral, that she would have accepted one, and that her multiple sclerosis, diagnosed on 20 May 2019, would otherwise have been detected earlier. The surgery's defence stands or falls with Dr Oranugo's.
Judgment in default of acknowledgement of service or defence was entered against each defendant on 25 October 2023. The surgery applied to set it aside on 10 October 2024, and Dr Oranugo applied on 25 October 2024. They also sought relief from sanctions.
Their explanation was administrative failure. Correspondence about the claim was handled by the then Practice Manager, who did not pass it to the partners. According to the surgery's Deputy Manager, she opened the post on 19 September 2024, after the Practice Manager had gone off sick, found a court notice and passed it to Dr Oranugo. Dr Oranugo said he first became aware of the claim on 19 September 2024.
The question
Mr Recorder Neville dismissed both applications on 20 February 2025. The appeal challenged his conclusion that the defences had no real prospect of success.
The Recorder's reasoning
Following the Court of Appeal's guidance in FXF v English Karate Federation Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 891, the Recorder first considered the merits test in CPR 13.3(1). He found the defendants' expert report lacking in detail and unsubstantiated, and the claimant's expert evidence clear and corroborated by a NICE guideline. He found no good reason under CPR 13.3(1)(b) to set the judgment aside.
He then went on to consider the three-stage Denton test, though not the prior question of whether the applications had been made promptly. He found the breach obviously serious, with no good explanation, and that Ms Lucas would be substantially more prejudiced than the defendants if relief were granted.
The grounds of appeal
Counsel for the appellants argued that the Recorder had conducted a "mini-trial", had failed to apply the Bolam/Bolitho test, and had reached a conclusion on the medical evidence that fell outside the ambit of his overall discretion. Counsel accepted in argument that whether the defence had real prospects of success was a matter of judicial evaluation, not the exercise of discretion.
What this means for defendants in clinical negligence claims
The Recorder weighed the merits of the defences, the explanation for the failures and the prejudice to the claimant when refusing to set aside the default judgments. The appeal challenged that approach on the grounds set out above. Anyone facing a claim or a default judgment should get advice before any deadline passes.
Sources
- Kerry Lucas v Dr Osita Oranugo & Anor [2026] EWHC 1534 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 23 June 2026