Simeon Maskrey KC, assisted by Chris Canning, successfully represents former premier league footballer in High Court clinical negligence claim

Ebanks-Blake v Professor James Calder [2025] EWHC 3327 (KB)

Football fans of a certain vintage will remember Sylyan Ebanks-Blake. He was a gifted English striker. He debuted for Manchester United in 2004, but he went on to become one of Wolves’ finest players of the modern era, winning several honours and awards, until injury and treatment in 2013 cut his career short.

He has now brought a successful claim against the surgeon who treated him in 2013.

In April 2013, Mr Ebanks-Blake suffered what Lambert J concluded was a ‘modest acute ankle fracture [of the fibula] only’ (§ 114). He came under the care of the defendant, Professor James Calder. Prof Calder is an orthopaedic surgeon. His practice is largely focussed on treating elite athletes and professional sportspeople – in the UK and internationally. Prof Calder repaired the fibula fracture, but he also performed an arthroscopy and microfracture procedure to Mr Ebanks-Blake’s ankle joint itself. This involved debridement and removal of scar tissue and loose cartilage, and making small holes in his talus bone.

Mr Ebanks-Blake was still only 27 when he returned to training 7 months later. But he was never the same player. He experienced bone-on-bone sensation in his ankle, and increasing pain and stiffness. He left Wolves and dropped down the leagues, playing through pain and steroid treatment, before formally retiring in 2016-17.

The High Court has now decided that Prof Calder’s decision to undertake arthroscopy was negligent. The judgment is significant for several reasons:

1. 1. It provides a rigorous example of the High Court’s application of the Bolam [1957] 1 WLR 582 and Bolitho [1988] AC 322 principles. The court rejected a Bolam defence despite strong support from two well qualified surgeons. Prof Calder himself is an experienced surgeon in treating elite sportspeople. His independent expert was Professor William Ribbans – another distinguished specialist sports surgeon who is honorary surgeon to several elite sports clubs and bodies. Prof Ribbans’ support was so strong that he opined that it would have been negligent for Prof Calder not to undertake arthroscopy. But Lambert J analysed the evidence about the defendant’s intentions at the time; made findings of fact about the condition of the ankle and those intentions; and scrutinised the experts’ reliance on research relating to the efficacy of arthroscopy and microfracture. The judge decided that, despite effectively double expert support for what the defendant did, it ‘was neither reasonable nor logical’ (§ 114). This is a reminder that ‘ultimately therefore it is for the court and not for medical opinion to decide the standard of care required of a professional in the circumstances of a particular case (§ 32).
   2. The case illustrates the dangers of lay evidence from an expert practitioner defendant being inappropriately contaminated by independent expert evidence. Lambert J found that Prof Calder’s justification for the treatment had evolved during the litigation. By trial, his evidence was that the injuries he found at surgery were so serious they could have been career-ending. He said nothing of the sort at the time (§ 78). But more troubling was that cross-examination showed that Prof Calder had cut and pasted sections of Prof Ribbans’ report and developed those in his witness statement (§ 79). Prof Calder’s evidence in the proceedings was therefore obviously not reliable as evidence of what he thought at the time. The judge was critical of this; she could place little or no weight on what Prof Calder said in his evidence (§ 81).
   3. The judgment also reminds practitioners that the breach test must be predicated on what the defendant knew, or should have known, and what he/she actually thought at the time – and cross-examination may effectively reveal these facts. The defendant’s expert was described as an ‘enthusiast for arthroscopy’ by the judge (§ 100). He gave several rationales as to why it was a good idea in this case. But cross-examination of Prof Calder revealed that these were not his rationales at the time (§§ 85-86). The judge was sceptical of the expert’s rationales anyway – but on these facts, they provided no assistance to the Prof Calder’s Bolam/Bolitho defence.

Lambert J also accepted the evidence of Mr Ebanks-Blake’s expert, Mr Peter Laing, that but for the negligence he would have remained pain free for a period of 3 to 5 years. He would have been capable of playing football at a high level (§ 133). It will be for the quantum trial to now determine the value of his foreshortened career and other losses.

Mr Ebanks-Blake was represented by Simeon Maskrey KC instructed by Stewarts Law, who was assisted by Chris Canning.

You can read the full judgment here.

Share: