The High Court gave judgment on 20 March 2026 in Daisy Lynch's clinical negligence claim against The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, which involves a long record of hospital care from childhood onwards.
Key facts
- Who: Patients and families considering or pursuing clinical negligence claims against NHS bodies
- From: 20 March 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Daisy Lynch v The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, [2026] EWHC 657 (KB)
The case
The High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, gave judgment in Daisy Lynch v The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 657 (KB) on 20 March 2026. The case number is QB-2021-002538. Ms Lynch is the claimant and the NHS Trust is the defendant.
Background
The judgment sets out the claimant's medical history in detail, drawing on hospital records and on her own evidence. It records that she had a femoral osteotomy, a hip operation, as a child. A review in April 2007 noted that she was walking normally without a limp, playing sports in PE and had a full, pain-free range of movement in her left hip. She was discharged from paediatric physiotherapy on 7 April 2008.
On 13 May 2009 she was reviewed and referred to Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) for a further opinion, after losing movement in her left hip and being unable to sit cross-legged. An X-ray showed a deformed femoral head, and X-rays in July 2009 indicated past avascular necrosis. In July 2009 a consultant orthopaedic surgeon recorded that no further intervention was indicated at that stage, that she might ultimately need a varus de-rotation osteotomy, and that swimming was recommended.
In January 2011 the same surgeon recorded occasional hip discomfort that was not limiting her activities, and that she had taken up hip-hop dancing. The claimant's evidence was that she had been unable to do the dance moves because of limited movement in her hip. In her witness statement she said she had tried lessons for a few weeks; in cross-examination she said she had attended only one class.
In March 2013 the surgeon recorded a leg length difference of about 1cm to 1.5cm on the left side and noted that a 1cm internal heel raise was to be provided. He was of the view that further surgery would not influence the longevity of her hip and that she stood an increased risk of premature osteoarthritis and of needing a total hip replacement. In May 2013 she was referred for physiotherapy after worsening hip pain. In cross-examination she agreed that her symptoms had increased slowly and gently over the following years.
The judgment also records a referral to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in December 2013 and a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist's meetings with her and her parents on 29 July 2014.
What this means for people bringing clinical negligence claims
The judgment shows how much detail can appear in the record of a clinical negligence claim: clinic letters, X-ray findings, referrals between hospitals, and the claimant's own witness statement and answers in cross-examination. The judgment records places where the claimant's evidence and the contemporary notes differ.
Anyone with a similar claim may wish to read the full judgment, which is available on the National Archives website, and to take legal advice about their own circumstances.