The High Court (King's Bench Division) gave judgment on 17 April 2026 in a claim by a man injured in a 2021 pylon fall against the NHS trust whose consultant psychiatrist assessed him two days earlier.
Key facts
- Who: Benjamin Ridge, the claimant, and Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust, the defendant.
- From: 17 April 2026 (date of judgment)
- Source: Benjamin Ridge v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust, [2026] EWHC 898 (KB)
Edmund Burge KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, heard the case on 17 to 19 March 2026 and handed down judgment remotely on 17 April 2026 (case number KB-2023-004625).
Background
In the early morning of 29 April 2021, Benjamin Ridge climbed an electricity pylon in a field near his home in Weymouth. He suffered a significant electric shock, was rendered unconscious and fell about 20 feet. He survived, but had severe electrical burns and fractures to two vertebrae, and later had an above-knee amputation of his right leg. He continues to have back pain, phantom limb pain and nerve damage to three limbs, and uses a wheelchair.
In the days before, Mr Ridge had extensive contact with the trust's mental health services because of depression and suicidal thoughts. On 27 April 2021 he had a face-to-face assessment with a locum Community Mental Health Team consultant psychiatrist, Dr Trendafilov.
The assessment
Dr Trendafilov diagnosed depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and generalised anxiety disorder, each assessed as "moderate". He also assessed the risk of self-harm as "moderate". He increased Mr Ridge's anti-depressant (Mirtazapine) from 30mg to 45mg, prescribed sleeping tablets and arranged a follow-up appointment for 30 April. He did not refer Mr Ridge to the Home Treatment Team for assessment for possible admission as a hospital inpatient. His notes recorded that if the risk of self-harm escalated, Mr Ridge was to be referred to that team.
The question
Mr Ridge's claim is that rating both his depression and his risk of self-harm as "moderate" fell below the standard reasonably expected of a competent psychiatrist with the relevant facts. He argues that proper skill and care would have produced an assessment of "severe", which ought to have led to a referral to the Home Treatment Team.
The evidence
The judgment examines what was known at the appointment. Mr Ridge's parents drove him there and waited in the car. He had packed a bag expecting to be admitted to hospital that day. The judgment records that Dr Trendafilov appears to have been unaware of the bag, that the parents were waiting, or that Mr Ridge had visited the pylon earlier that morning. Mr Ridge made no mention of that morning visit in the meeting.
In cross-examination Mr Ridge said he had gone to the pylon on the morning of 27 April but had not climbed it. He agreed that his diary entries did not support this.
Dr Trendafilov's notes recorded Mr Ridge's mood as "very low". His letter of 30 April 2021 recorded that Mr Ridge had tried to climb a pylon three times in the previous two weeks.
What this means for people involved in clinical negligence claims
The judgment sets out in detail what Dr Trendafilov was told, what he recorded and what he did not know at the 27 April 2021 appointment. The claim turns on whether his "moderate" assessments fell below the standard expected of a competent psychiatrist.
Sources
- Benjamin Ridge v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust, [2026] EWHC 898 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 17 April 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/898