Jarmarleos Do Zurius v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Anor
| Court | King's Bench Division |
| Judge | DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 2025 |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 57 (KB) |
| Date | 17 January 2025 |
| Year | 2025 |
| Counsel | Kirsty Mckinlay,Claimant |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 57 (KB)
Case No: QB-2020-003210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 17/01/2025
Before :
DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
JARMARLEOS DO ZURIUS Claimant
- and -
(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH &
SOCIAL CARE
(2) SHEFFIELD TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS
FOUNDATION TRUST
Defendants
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Claimant appeared in person
Kirsty McKinlay (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 10 - 12 December 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.00am on 17 January 2025 by circulation to
the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC
DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC
Approved Judgment
Jarmarleos Do Zurius v NHS England
DHCJ AIDAN EARDLEY KC:
1. In these proceedings the Claimant alleges that staff at an NHS walk-in centre in
Nottingham wrongfully disclosed (or negligently failed to prevent a third party from
accessing) his private medical information. This has become known in the proceedings as
the First Claim. He further alleges that the Second Defendant wrongfully refused to offer
him employment on the basis of unfounded rumours about his character (known in the
proceedings as the Second Claim). This is my judgment following a trial of certain
preliminary issues which I identify at paragraph 10 below. At the conclusion of the trial,
the Defendants invited me to find that, for the purposes of CPR 44.16, the Claimant’s
claim is fundamentally dishonest. I also address that issue in this judgment.
2. My judgment is structured as follows:
A. The parties (paragraphs 3-6)
B. Procedural history (paragraphs 7-14)
C. The parties’ pleaded factual cases (paragraphs 15-21)
D. Evidence at trial (paragraphs 22-30)
E. Matters no longer in dispute (paragraph 31)
F. Relevant rules of evidence and procedure (paragraphs 32-47)
G. The authenticity of the Claimant’s documents (paragraphs 48-81)
H. “Breach of duty” (paragraphs 82-93)
I. Limitation (paragraphs 94-101)
J. Loss of employment/loss of a chance (paragraphs 102-106)
K. Heads of damage (paragraphs 107-110)
L. Fundamental dishonesty (paragraphs 111-121)
M. Conclusion (paragraphs 122-123)
A. The parties
3. The Claimant lives in Mauritius. He was born on 22 August 1985. At certain times in his
life, in particular in 2005 and 2006 when he was in his early twenties, he sought
employment in the healthcare sector in the UK and spent some time in the UK pursuing
that goal. Further details about his employment and immigration history are obscure but
it appears that he has been unsuccessful in obtaining long-term employment in the UK.
His birth name was Tohendra Ashwin Kumar Ramdhany and this is the name used in
DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC
Approved Judgment
Jarmarleos Do Zurius v NHS England
respect of many of the documents that are relevant to this case. The Defendants have
never formally admitted that Mr Ramdhany is one and the same as the Claimant.
However, I accept that this is true. The trial bundle includes a document, the authenticity
of which has not been seriously disputed, which records a decision of the Attorney
General of Mauritius, dated 24 December 2012, certifying that Tohendra Ashwin Kumar
Ramdhany has permission to change his name to Jarmarleos do Zurius.
4. The Claimant has acted in person throughout these proceedings. He is clearly intelligent,
articulate, and familiar with the substantive law of England and Wales: his written and
oral submissions were cogent and made appropriate reference to relevant principles of
law and authorities. However, he evidently lacks knowledge and experience of civil
procedure and this gave me some concern as to whether he really appreciated what was
required of him as a claimant. I took various steps to address these concerns, which I
detail below.
5. The First Defendant accepts that he is the appropriate public authority in respect of the
acts/omissions of staff at the walk-in centre given that responsibility for the centre has
shifted between various NHS entities over time and that the centre no longer exists as
such (it is now an “urgent treatment centre”).
6. The Second Defendant is the NHS body that was responsible for any decision to employ,
or refuse an offer of employment to, the Claimant at one or other of its hospitals in 2006.
B. Procedural history
7. This case has had a convoluted procedural history. I do not need to set it out in full. The
essential points are these. A claim was issued on 18 August 2020 attaching particulars of
claim dated 3 August 2020 (the Original Particulars of Claim ). The named defendant
was “NHS England” and the Original Particulars of Claim advanced not only the First
Claim and the Second Claim but also claimed that he had been wrongfully refused
employment at a number of other hospitals (including in Norwich, Reading and Leeds)
on the basis of the same false and malicious information.
8. The Claimant then produced amended Particulars of Claim dated 21 January 2021 and
was given permission to file and serve them (along with an amended Claim Form) by 4
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
1 cases
-
Jarmarleos Do Zurius v Secretary of State for Health & Social Care
...or that he would have had a real and substantial chance of securing employment with the Second Defendant or elsewhere in the NHS[2025] EWHC 57 (KB) DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE Aidan Eardley KC Case No: QB-2020-003210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LI......
