High Court cuts plastic surgery victim's claim from £66m to £6m
The High Court has awarded £6m in damages to a successful businesswoman whose face was badly injured by plastic surgery.
The High Court has awarded £6m in damages to a successful businesswoman whose face was badly injured by plastic surgery.
Despite being only a fraction of her original claim for £66m, the award is understood to be the biggest ever for negligent plastic surgery.
Delivering judgment in Johnson v Le Roux Fourie [2011] EWHC 1062 (QB), Mr Justice Foskett said the plastic surgeon admitted liability for Penny Johnson's injuries.
These included a 'complete right-sided facial palsy' with inability to close the right eye or to control food when eating on the right side. Mr Justice Foskett said the disputed issues were the assessment of general damages and claim for loss of earnings.
'The abnormal facial movement, which is uncontrollable and of which she is acutely self-conscious, amounts to a very considerable cosmetic disability,' he said.
'She also suffers abnormal sensations on the right side of the face and around the right eye, and the sagging sensation in the right eyebrow.'
Foskett J said Johnson had also experienced an uncomfortable left breast, including episodes of 'sharp pain and intense aching', resulting from the replacement of breast implants.
He said the psychological impact of the injuries had been 'devastating' on Johnson, who he described as 'formerly a confident, happy and outstandingly successful woman with a full and rewarding family and social life'.
Mr Justice Foskett said Johnson and her husband set up their own company, BCL, in 1998 and she became 'actively engaged' in developing it in 2001.
The court heard that the company recorded a turnover of more than £2m and gross profit of over £420,000 for the year ending 31 March 2002. The profit rose to £783,000 for the nine months ending 31 December 2002 and to £869,000 for the 12 months to 31 December 2003.
Foskett J said Johnson's argument was that BCL was 'on the verge of substantial expansion and greatly increased profitability'.
He went on: 'The defendant's case is that the claimant's projections are wholly unrealistic, not as a consequence of deliberate exaggeration on her part, but because she is hopelessly over optimistic as to what could have been achieved. It is submitted that on an objective basis her projections are not tenable.'
Foskett J questioned whether Johnson would have been able to meet the demands of 'such a rapid and massive expansion of the business'.
He said the expansion of the business would have required the introduction of management structures and recruiting of staff, but Johnson's evidence showed the 'difficulty in recruiting managers of the requisite calibre'.
Servicing the expanded number of contracts would also have required a 'dramatic increase in the number of consultants'.
In particular, Foskett J said Johnson's claim that her absence for the last four months of 2003 resulted in lost sales of £2.9m, which would have doubled the firm's turnover in that year, was 'plainly unrealistic and serves further to undermine the degree of confidence that can be placed on her projections'.
He awarded Johnson £6,190,884.92, including general damages of £80,000.
Colum Smith, head of litigation at McMillan Williams in Croydon, acted for Johnson.
'My client has been through hell and back,' he commented on the firm's website. 'While she has a £6.2m award, issues remain outstanding and she is likely to appeal the judges' decision.'
The Medical Defence Union, which instructed Nabarro, declined to comment.