ARTICLE
11 April 2025

Medical Negligence Caselaw Report

MK
Michael Kyprianou Law Firm

Contributor

The firm, based in Cyprus, has an international presence. Its services include Dispute Resolution, Property, Shipping, Immigration, Commercial and Corporate Law. It is highly ranked by leading legal directories, including Legal500 and Chambers and regularly receives accolades from the Cyprus Government and international bodies, in recognition of its excellent service and commitment to the values of integrity, efficiency and professionalism.
As seen with our previous article on the subject, which can be found here, a court may make a finding of medical negligence in relation to the following...
Cyprus Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

As seen with our previous article on the subject, which can be found here, a court may make a finding of medical negligence in relation to the following:

  • prognosis and diagnosis
  • advice for risks and alternative treatment available
  • treatment
  • post-operative care

In a recent judgement of the Supreme Court of Cyprus in case CA 145/16, dated 11/3/25 examined an appeal filed by a doctor against a judgment of the District Court of Nicosia. The doctor had been found negligent in relation to a spine operation he had performed on our client, the plaintiff who at the time of the operation was 40 years old, and who was awarded by the Court approximately €170,000 in damages. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. Menelaos Kyprianou on behalf of our firm before the District Court and the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court judgment confirmed the finding of the District Court that the doctor had been negligent in the post operative care he had provided to the plaintiff in not promptly dealing with a haematoma that had occurred during the operation. The Supreme Court repeated that the duty of care extends to post-operative care and treatment of complications following the well-known English cases of Powell (1935) and Cassidy (1951).

Moreover, the Supreme Court confirmed the District Court's finding that the doctor had not, in an appropriate manner, warned the plaintiff of the risks associated with the operation. The court reiterated the well-known precedent of the Varianou case, another Supreme Court judgment which our firm successfully litigated. This case adopted the Bolitho (1997) and Pearce (1999) English cases principle, whereby the doctor's duty, to provide information to the patient in order for the patient's informed consent to be given, would have to relate to information the reasonable patient would want to know and not that which the Doctor himself considers important. In other words, no reasonable doctor should fail to disclose a risk regarded as significant by a reasonable patient.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More