EWJ August 62 2025 web - Journal - Page 111
Pantelli Strikes Again – Pleadings
Disclose No Reasonable Grounds
For Dental Negligence Claim
Katie Everson and Louise Jackson of Clyde and Co, acting on behalf of Dental Protection
achieve strike out of dental negligence claim as Claimant’s evidence shows no reasonable grounds
for bringing the claim. A reminder to obtain expert evidence from the correct discipline and
ensure it supports the allegations made before pleading a Claim.
The Claimant subsequently obtained a breach of duty
report from an expert GDP and made an Application
to the Court for permission to rely upon this evidence.
Concerns were raised by the Defendants about the potential impact on the Case Management Timetable
and that the Claimant would likely need amend the
Particulars of Claim. The Claimant insisted that the
Particulars of Claim would not require amendment.
At the hearing of the Claimant’s Application, the
Claimant was granted permission to rely upon breach
of duty evidence from a GDP with the Claimant
paying the Defendants’ costs.
Background
The Claimant had replacement dentures fitted under
the care of the Third Defendant General Dental
Practitioner (‘GDP’) in 2017.
The Claimant had presented at an initial appointment
complaining of facial pain and a plan was made to extract carious retained roots at LR1-2 and replace the
existing dentures. The Third Defendant subsequently
performed extraction of the retained roots at LR1-2
and fitted new dentures. The Claimant attended the
First Defendant, GDP (separately represented) three
months later with jaw pain and subsequently attended
the Second Defendant, GDP with facial pain and a
broken lower denture. The dentures were repaired
and a secondary care referral was made by the Second Defendant. The Claimant was reviewed in secondary care in 2018. The Claimant’s dentures were
noted to be underextended, unstable and unretentive. The Claimant was diagnosed with trigeminal
neuralgia.
Factual witness evidence was exchanged, which
revealed numerous inconsistencies in the Claimant’s
case. The Second and Third Defendants served a
Notice to Admit Facts upon the Claimant, which was
ignored.
Following exchange of expert evidence, the Second
and Third Defendants sent Part 35 questions to the
Claimant’s liability experts. The Second and Third
Defendants also invited the Claimant to discontinue
the claim.
The Claimant issued a claim against the Defendants in
October 2022. The claim against the First Defendant
was brought on the basis of an alleged failure to adequately assess the Claimant’s symptoms and failure to
make a sufficient referral for investigation. The
Claimant advanced similar allegations against the Second Defendant. It was also alleged that the Second
Defendant failed to fix the broken dentures. The
claim against the Third Defendant was brought on the
basis of an alleged failure to investigate symptoms and
make a referral. Allegations were advanced in relation
to the manufacturing, moulding and measurements
and fitting of the dentures.
The responses to the Part 35 Questions confirmed
that the Claimant’s breach of duty expert did not support the allegations pleaded in the Particulars of
Claim. The Claimant’s breach of duty expert relied
upon the secondary care records as evidence that
there was a failure by the Third Defendant in the technical execution of the Dentures, despite conceding
that the denture preparation and treatment provided
at each appointment was reasonable.
The Defendants invited the Claimant to discontinue
the claim, but he opted not to do so. Therefore, the
Defendants issued a joint Application to strike out, or
in the alternative summary judgment. A hearing was
listed.
The Claimant advanced a claim for damages totalling
£176,706 excluding PSLA.
The Claimant relied upon breach of duty evidence
from an expert in prosthodontics, whose opinion did
not align with the pleaded allegations. It was highlighted to the Claimant that it was not appropriate to
rely upon evidence from a prosthodontist in view of all
Defendants being GDPs. At the first Costs and Case
Management Conference, the Claimant sought permission to obtain breach of duty evidence from a GDP
expert. The Claimant had not obtained this evidence
and the Application was refused by the Court.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Three days before the hearing of the Defendants’
Application, the Claimant discontinued the claims
against the First and Second Defendants. The
Claimant continued with the claim against the Third
Defendant.
The Hearing
At the hearing, the Third Defendant submitted that in
Pantelli Associates Ltd v Corporate Developments Number
109
AUGUST/SEPT 2025
