15th April 2026 – Our client, a woman from Herne Bay, then aged 27, found out that she was pregnant with twins in January 2020.
She and her partner had 3 children between them already and decided that the twins would complete their family. She arranged, accordingly, to have an elective C-section delivery followed by a sterilisation procedure at the same time.
Scans showed the couple to be expecting 2 boys and they named them Otis and Abel.
The pregnancy was managed and the delivery took place at the QEQM Hospital in Margate operated by the East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust.
On 03.08.20, at 34 +3 weeks, fetal scanning showed a significant disparity in growth between Otis and Abel. This was assessed and described as only being “a slight reduction in growth” in Otis and no action was taken in relation to it. In fact, the reduction in growth and disparity between Otis and Abel was significant and mandated early delivery which would have resulted in both babies being born alive and well.
On Friday 14 August 2020, at 36 weeks, our client experienced abrupt and concerning fetal movements in one of the twins followed by a lack of movement. She phoned Triage in the Maternity Department, very concerned, but was told that there was no need to be alarmed and that she should wait for the C-section scheduled for the following Monday to go ahead. That was negligent advice. Our client should have been advised to attend the hospital urgently for investigation.
Initially, the Trust denied that she had made the call. When she was able to demonstrate that she had, through mobile phone records, it was accepted by obstetrician, Mr Ross on 09.03.21 that “There is now no dispute that you did indeed ring triage on the date and time in question.” Despite this, in its Letter of Response, under the Pre-Action Protocol, dated 11.08.25, the Trust asserted that there is a “factual issue as to whether the call took place”. It did take place but the Trust has failed to produce a note of it (the first ‘missing record’). Had the Trust acted properly, in relation to the call made, then, on the balance of probabilities, both babies would still have been safely delivered alive and well.
When our client attended the QEQM on the morning of Monday 07.08.20, for her C‑section, a midwife auscultated for fetal heart rates. She seemed very unsure of herself but ultimately advised clearly and definitively that she could hear both fetal heart rates. It is quite clear that, by this point, Otis had passed and so the assessment and reporting of a second fetal heart rate was erroneous and negligent.
It left our client believing and expecting that both twins would be delivered by C‑section then having to face the appalling trauma of Abel being born alive and Otis stillborn. But for the Trust’s negligence in this regard, our client could have been properly advised and prepared for the loss and delivery and not had to face it in such horrific circumstances.
Despite those circumstances, our client was still asked whether she wanted to proceed with the sterilisation and in her distraught and confused state, she said that she did. It was negligent for the Trust to even suggest that the sterilisation procedure proceed, in those circumstances, and it did so without our client’s valid consent.
The sterilisation procedure went ahead. The Trust have failed to produce an operation note from this C section and failed sterilisation, (the second ‘missing’ record)
The sterilisation was also performed negligently so that our client fell pregnant in August 2022, giving birth to a further child, by elective C-section, on 09.03.23. Prior to this, she was assured that the C section, to be followed by a re‑sterilisation, would provide answers as to what had gone wrong with the original procedure.
This has not happened. Instead, the Trust have failed to produce an operation note from this further C section and re-sterilisation procedure (the third ‘missing’ record)
It seems, accordingly, that, on top of the abject negligence in the case, the Trust has failed to create or has lost or has expunged from our client’s records and suppressed not one key medical document, not 2 but 3!
No adequate explanation has ever been provided in relation to this.
Our client took part in the Kirkup Inquiry in relation to her pregnancy and the loss of Otis with the investigation team identifying the failings at 34 weeks and on the Friday before the delivery of Abel and Otis.
We were instructed by the family and took forward cases on behalf of our client, securing her notes, highlighting the absence of the 3 documents, not receiving any satisfactory explanation for that and then instructing an obstetric expert
Our expert confirmed the failings identified above. In relation to Otis, the negligence at 34 weeks, with the call handling on the Friday and in purportedly auscultating 2 heart beats on the day of the C- section, (Otis’s case). In relation to the sterilisation, in continuing with it without valid consent and negligently performing it so that it failed, (the failed sterilisation case).
On 04.03.25 two separate detailed Letters of Claim were sent to the Trust, under the Pre-Action Protocol, setting out all the allegations of negligent failings in each case.
Letters of Response were produced by the Trust’s solicitors on 11.08.25.
Their letter in relation to Otis accepted that the Trust had been negligent in relation to the reduced fetal growth in Otis, denied that the call had been made on the Friday, whilst admitting that, if it had been made, as alleged, then the failure of the Trust to act was negligent and further accepted that the reporting of 2 fotal heart rates on the morning of the C-section was also negligent.
They denied, however, that the growth negligence made any difference, arguing that delivery would not have taken place in time to save Otis.
Causation was also not accepted in relation to the Friday call.
As regards the fetal heart rates, the Trust’s position was that Otis had passed anyway and so delivery with the knowledge of that would still have been traumatic, so that no causation in relation to that negligence was admitted either.
A strong letter of rebuttal sent on 18.08.25 was ignored.
In relation to the failed sterilisation, in their Letter of Response, the Trust admitted that the procedure should not have taken place immediately after the C‑section so that, but for that negligence/lack of consent, our client would have had a sterilisation procedure at a later point. Causation was denied, however, on the basis that there was a risk that the sterilisation would have failed whenever it had been performed! The Trust failed to respond to the allegation that the procedure had been performed negligently (as evidenced by the fact that it failed!) A further trenchant letter of rebuttal was sent on 18.08.25, on this case, as well, which letter was also ignored.
This left the Claimant having to issue and take forward Court proceedings which were served, covering both cases, in January 2026.
The Court papers included a report from a psychiatrist instructed to examine the Claimant who assessed her as having been caused post-traumatic stress and a major depressive disorder due to the Trust’s negligence.
The Trust’s solicitors responded to proceedings by asking for more time to serve a Defence.
The Claimant allowed them 28 days whilst making it clear that no further extensions of time would be allowed.
Prior to the date for serving a Defence, the Trust offered to settle the case in the sum of £80,000, under Part 36 of the Court Rules, which offer the Claimant had no choice but to accept, despite the fact that this robbed her of the opportunity of having the Trust be made to answer her claim fully and coherently, including in relation to the ‘missing notes’ – which issue was included within the proceedings as a GDPR breach.
Nick Fairweather, who had conduct of this matter on behalf of the Claimant, commented as follows:-“This is a truly shocking case but sadly not dissimilar to many of the East Kent Trust cases I have dealt with covering its maternity failings. The stark sequence of abject clinical errors are clearly appalling and speak for themselves. Not only did they cost Otis his life but straight after this the Trust proceeded with a sterilisation that should never have taken place and then even managed to bungle that. On top of all this, key, fundamental medical records have ‘gone missing’ and the Trust have still not explained that adequately or at all. Finally, they have dealt with my client’s legal case with casual indifference. All of this is, I am afraid, is typical of the East Kent Trust. This client is yet another woman who has received appalling maternity care from the Trust with such devastating consequences. I have no doubt that she would have actually responded as positively as she possibly could have if the Trust had been clear and transparent with her and, in particular, made a full, frank and genuine apology. Instead, she has had to practically drag them to the Court before getting any kind of recompense and still not full answers. I pay tribute to her courage and tenacity in demanding and ultimately getting justice for Otis, herself and the wider family. The East Kent Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust truly underestimated her.”
Our client commented as follows:- ” I carried and loved my twin boys through a high‑risk pregnancy, did everything I could, and still lost Otis because the NHS ignored clear signs that he needed help and dismissed my pleas for support. His death was preventable, and the trauma didn’t end there, further mistakes, broken trust, and deliberate deceit changed our lives forever. Knowing that his death was caused by multiple failures and negligence is something we will carry for the rest of my life, and facing a Trust that chose to lie and cover its actions has been incredibly painful.
But through all of that, our solicitor stood by us. While the NHS failed us, he fought relentlessly for the truth, showed genuine care for our son, and secured the justice Otis deserved. Nick gave Otis a voice when he no longer had one, and we are eternally grateful for his strength, compassion, and unwavering commitment to our family.”
If you or your family need the assistance of our experienced specialist team of Clinical Negligence Solicitors then please submit your case details for our consideration.