Christopher Isaac Singh (A minor, suing by his mother and next friend, Nicole Singh Nee Mohammed) (Respondent) v Dr Prakashbhan Persad (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0036

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

PRAKASHBHAN PERSAD

Respondent(s)

CHRISTOPHER SINGH

Issue

Was the Court of Appeal correct to interfere with the High Court’s finding that the appellant doctor was not negligent?

Facts

The Appellant is Dr Persad, an obstetrics and gynaecology doctor. At the relevant time, he practiced as a consultant at St. Augustine Private Hospital (“the Hospital”). Dr Persad was in charge of Christopher Singh’s (“the Respondent”) delivery on 9 September 2012. The Respondent was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy-spastic quadriplegia and a number of related medical conditions. In 2016, Mrs Singh, the Respondent’s mother, brought a claim in negligence against the Hospital, Dr Persad and Dr Narra (the anaesthetist). The claim was eventually discontinued against Dr Narra. The central question at trial was whether the monitoring at the time of delivery and the actions by Dr Persad were negligent and a cause of the Respondent’s condition. On 9 September 2012, Mrs Singh was admitted to the delivery room. Dr Persad examined Mrs Singh at 05:45 and found that the foetus was wrongly positioned for delivery. Dr Persad judged that it would be necessary to wait an hour before attempting delivery to give the foetus an opportunity to turn. At 7am, the foetus had not turned. At 9am, a forceps delivery was unsuccessful. Dr Persad judged that an emergency Caesarean Section was necessary. That C-Section was commenced by Dr Persad at approximately 10:55. A number of delays and problems ensued in the lead up to the C-Section. For example: the Hospital staff had difficulty contacting Dr Narra who arrived at the Hospital at 09:50; the relevant spinal anaesthetic needed was not available at the Hospital so Dr Persad offered to provide the relevant drug from his office across the street; there was delay in the arrival of the theatre assistant who arrived by 10:40; Dr Narra experienced difficulty in administering the spinal injection which was administered at 10:55; and the cardiotocography trace which was being used to monitor foetal heart rate was removed and was not recommenced prior to surgery to check for foetal distress. The C-Section was commenced at approximately 10:55 and the Respondent was delivered at 11:13 at 37 weeks’ gestation. At first instance, the High Court found that delay in delivery caused the injuries. It found that the Hospital was in breach of its duty and liable for the injuries. The claim against Dr Persad was dismissed. The Hospital appealed and the Respondent appealed against the decision to dismiss the claim against Dr Persad. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Hospital’s appeal and allowed then Respondent’s appeal against Dr Persad. The Court of Appeal granted Dr Persad final leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

6 May 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top