Lawsuits or medical negligence claims

​​​Request 756130181 

I would like to enquire if any lawsuits or medical negligence claims have been made against [redacted], by any member of the public. 

Response 

In relation to public patients, the Defendant would ordinarily be the Minister for Health and Social Services, and not an individual Consultant. Health and Care Jersey would not hold information relating to claims made against doctors in respect of consultations or care provided through their private rooms. 

It has been determined that to provide any response pertaining to claims made or lawsuits brought in respect of treatment provided by individual clinicians would constitute “personal data" and the release of such data would contravene one or more data protection principles. 

Health and Care Jersey is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it is in the public interest to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds any information on historical cases of medical negligence or lawsuits brought against / in respect of named individuals whilst in the employment of Health and Care Jersey, in order to protect the privacy of individual members of staff. Therefore, Article 10(2) and Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 have been applied. 

Articles applied 

Article 10 - Obligation of scheduled public authority to confirm or deny holding information 

(1)     Subject to paragraph (2), if –

(a)     a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority; and

(b)     the authority does not hold the information, it must inform the applicant accordingly.

(2)     If a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority and –

(a)     the information is absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information; or

(b)     if the authority does not hold the information, the information would be absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information if it had held it,the authority may refuse to inform the applicant whether or not it holds the information if it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it is in the public interest to do so.

(3)     If a scheduled public authority so refuses –

(a)     it shall be taken for the purpose of this Law to have refused to supply the information requested on the ground that it is absolutely exempt information; and

(b)     it need not inform the applicant of the specific ground upon which it is refusing the request or, if the authority does not hold the information, the specific ground upon which it would have refused the request had it held the information.​

Article 25 - Personal information 

(1)     Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005.

(2)     Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a)     it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005; and

(b)     its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.

3)      In determining for the purposes of this Article whether the lawfulness principle in Article 8(1)(a) of the Data ​Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 would be contravened by the disclosure of information, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to that Law (legitimate interests) is to be read as if sub-paragraph (b) (which disapplies the provision where the controller is a public authority) were omitted.

Internal Review Request

I believe that your response is incorrect and that I, as the general public, should have access to this information and it should be readily available. You have on two occasions asked for an extension to be able to provide this information to me, which, if your letter is correct, you could of provided this information immediately after my first request. This denotes that there have been internal conversations about this case and as such I will be submitting a SAR request to obtain any and all information.

I have the right to request an internal review, which I now instruct to go ahead please.

Internal Review Response

The Medical Director of Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) and the HCJ Information Governance Manager were asked to undertake the Internal Review. Neither party had been involved in composing the original response.

The Internal Review was coordinated and administered by the HCJ FOI Officer, and took place at the Jersey General Hospital on 17 February 2026. The in-scope FOI response and the Internal Review Procedure were shared with both reviewers on this day.

Both the Medical Director and the HCJ Information Governance Manager were asked to consider whether:

▪ the Freedom of Information request had been handled appropriately

▪ the Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 has been properly applied

▪ it is possible to provide you with any further information, and

They will also provide an outcome of the internal review by stating whether:

▪ the original decision is upheld, or

▪ the original decision is reversed in part or in full, or

▪ the original decision is modified

Was the request handled appropriately?

In order to address FOI requests, it is necessary to make enquiries with relevant or specialist colleagues, teams and service areas to understand the extent of information held on record and request that this is reported / supplied to HCJ’s FOI Officer.

On receipt of the original FOI request, information was sought from relevant persons.

Access to any information held on claims and other legal matters is available to limited personnel within the Department. As such, initial enquiries were made with Legal Services.

Given the nature of the query and this being the first time such a request for clinician-specific lawsuit or medical negligence claim information had been received, it was considered necessary to seek advice from the Law Officer’s Department. The exemptions cited in the response, therefore, communicated the legal position.

Upon the provision of this advice, the response was promptly prepared and sent to HCJ’s Chief Officer for review and approval, after which it was issued by the Central FOI Unit.

All appropriate processes were followed throughout.

Has the Law been properly applied?

The exemptions cited were Article 10: Obligation of scheduled public authority to confirm or deny holding information, and Article 25: Personal information – Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.​

Article 10 [Obligation of scheduled public authority to confirm or deny holding information] states:

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), if – 

(a) a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority; and 

(b) the authority does not hold the information, it must inform the applicant accordingly. 

(2) If a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority and – 

(a) the information is absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information; or 

(b) if the authority does not hold the information, the information would be absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information if it had held it, the authority may refuse to inform the applicant whether or not it holds the information if it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it is in the public interest to do so. 

(3) If a scheduled public authority so refuses – 

(a) it shall be taken for the purpose of this Law to have refused to supply the information requested on the ground that it is absolutely exempt information; and 

(b) it need not inform the applicant of the specific ground upon which it is refusing the request or, if the authority does not hold the information, the specific ground upon which it would have refused the request had it held the information.

Article 10 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 supports the protection of absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information, or would be absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information if it were held.

It ensures that other Articles are upheld where to confirm or deny whether or not information is held might, in itself, disclose – directly or indirectly – information which would otherwise be absolutely exempt or qualified exempt from disclosure; the application of this exemption may involve consideration not only of the request to which it is applied, but also historic and future requests for similar information.

Article 25 [Personal information] states:

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005. 

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if – 

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and 

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.[3] 

(3) In determining for the purposes of this Article whether the lawfulness principle in Article 8(1)(a) of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 would be contravened by the disclosure of information, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to that Law (legitimate interests) is to be read as if sub-paragraph (b) (which disapplies the provision where the controller is a public authority) were omitted.[4]

As noted in the original response, the type of information requested would constitute personal data of individual(s), including claimants, and so would be exempt from disclosure under Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, should any such information be held.

Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is an absolute exemption.

In order to uphold Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, the potential for direct and / or indirect disclosure of personal or personally identifiable information must be considered.

Having reviewed the definitions as stated in the relevant legislation, it was agreed that the Law had been appropriately considered and applied.

Is it possible to provide you with any further information?

Details of total claims against the Minister for Health and Social Services in respect of medical care / negligence, and compensation paid as a result, have been provided in a number of Freedom of Information responses. Published responses can be reviewed on the Freedom of Information requests and responses Disclosure Log on www.gov.je, which includes a search tool to assist in identifying relevant responses:

Freedom of Information requests and responses

Additionally, these matters have been discussed at meetings of the Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board; Board papers and meeting minutes can be found on www.gov.je at the following link:

Health and Care Jersey Services Board​

In respect of the time taken to respond

It was essential for this request that expert advice be sought. Timeframes to complete were impacted by annual leave and reduced working hours of critical personnel, and apologies were extended for the delay in supplying the response.

The Freedom of Information response was provided on Day 40, following 20 days approved extension to the initial 20 working day period of the request. Whilst the initial period prescribed is 20 working days, the Law allows 65 days to respond to Freedom of Information requests, should such time be required and justified.

Outcome

It was agreed that HCJ appropriately handled the original response and that the exemptions applied are compliant with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. Therefore, the original decision is upheld