Expert Witness Journal Issue 66 April 2026 - Flipbook - Page 29
An update on medical tourism
claims: Ashamu v Get Slim in
Turkey [2025] EWHC (QB)
by Dominique Smith, Barrister at Deka Chambers
This case note by Dominique Smith, who acted
for the claimants, explains the factual basis of this
cross-border clinical negligence claim and provides
analysis about the signi昀椀cance of the judgment.
Dominique was instructed by Phil Banks, Carly
McGill and Daniella Preger of Irwin Mitchell.
at Ekol Hospital on 1st February 2019 under the
care of Dr Yaman. On 3rd February 2019, she was
taken to theatre for a further exploratory surgery
due to concerns about intestinal dilation and was
then taken to ICU for observation. However, from
the Deceased’s arrival to ICU at 19:05 hours to 19:55
hours, no monitoring information was recorded.
The Deceased was subsequently discovered in
cardiac arrest at approximately 19:55 hours. CPR
was undertaken and she was thereafter in a coma. It
later transpired that she was in fact tragically brain
dead. She was subsequently pronounced deceased
on 9th February 2019.
Last week, the High Court considered the
applicability of the Package Travel and Linked
Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 (“PTR
2018”) in a cross-border clinical negligence case,
namely Ashamu v Tracey Ozdemir T/A Get Slim
in Turkey (2025) EWHC (QB). Whilst this case is
unusual on the basis in which it was defended, it
provides an interesting insight as to how the courts
are grappling with the Regulations in cross-border
clinical negligence claims.
Proceedings were ultimately issued against the
Defendant in February 2022, bringing a claim
under the PTR 2018 and, further or alternatively,
on the basis that there was a consumer contract in
existence.
Factual background
The Deceased, who was aged 26 at the time of her
death, had decided to enquire about gastric bypass
surgery and gastric sleeve surgery in 2018, due to
concerns she had about her weight. She located the
Defendant’s business online and proceeded to enter
into correspondence with them about their surgical
packages. The Defendant was o昀昀ering multiple types
of surgical package, which included accommodation
at a hotel, transfers, tests, surgery, and aftercare,
at an all-inclusive price. The Deceased decided to
book a gastric sleeve package and was informed
that she needed to book her own 昀氀ights before the
package could be booked. She proceeded to do so
and was subsequently sent a booking con昀椀rmation
and medical form by the Defendant. Whilst she had
initially booked the gastric sleeve package with the
Defendant, she amended this to the bypass package
(which was the same package albeit a bypass rather
than a sleeve, at no extra cost).
Unusually, the Defendant’s Defence failed to deal
with numerous allegations in the Particulars of
Claim. The Defendant was ultimately deemed to
admit the following, pursuant to CPR 16.5:
that English law applied;
•
that there was a consumer contract in existence
between the Deceased and the Defendant and
that the Deceased was a consumer;
•
the consumer contract contained implied
terms that the surgeries, treatment
and aftercare would be performed with
reasonable skill and care;
•
causation; and
•
the Particulars of Injury.
The Defendant’s position in its Defence hinged
on the applicability of the PTR 2018. The Defence
advanced that the Defendant was an ‘introducer’
and that the PTR 2018 was inapplicable on that basis.
The Deceased subsequently 昀氀ew to Turkey on 31st
January 2019. She proceeded to undergo the bypass
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
•
27
APRIL 2026
