Appleton v Garrett [1996] 5 PIQR P1
TRESPASS TO THE PERSON – AGGRAVATED DAMAGES
Facts
The claimants were patients of the defendant dentist, who had carried out unnecessary treatment upon them. The defendant had deliberately withheld information about the necessity of the treatment in the knowledge that they would not have consented to the treatment had he made them aware of the facts.
The claimants sought aggravated damages from the defendant on the basis that, inter alia, they had suffered trespass to the person.
Issues
The issues were firstly whether liability for trespass to the person was made out in the circumstances, and secondly whether aggravated damages could be awarded for trespass to the person.
Decision/Outcome
On the first issue, the court held that the lack of consent to the treatment on teeth which did not require treatment was sufficient to establish liability for trespass to the person.
On the second issue, the court held that there were two elements which determined the availability of aggravated damages: firstly, the presence of ‘exceptional’ or ‘contumelious’ conduct by the defendant; secondly, ‘intangible loss’ or injury to the personality suffered by the claimant. On the facts of this case, the first element was made out as the defendant had deliberately caused pain and damage to the claimants, who had placed him in a position of trust. The second element was also present as the claimants had suffered a heightened sense of injury upon learning that their treatments had been unnecessary. In quantifying the damages, the court followed the principle in W v Meah [1986] 1 All E.R. 935 that aggravated damages should be moderate; in this case, they were assessed at 15% of the general damages awarded.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. Appleton v Garrett [1996] 5 PIQR P1 continues to be cited as good authority for the proposition that performing unnecessary dental treatment on a patient who has not given informed consent can constitute trespass to the person, and that aggravated damages are available for such trespass where the defendant’s conduct is exceptional or contumelious and the claimant has suffered intangible injury to their dignity or personality. The two-stage framework for aggravated damages described in the article has not been materially displaced by subsequent legislation or authority. W v Meah [1986] 1 All ER 935 remains recognised as authority for the principle that aggravated damages should be moderate. Readers should note that the broader law on consent in medical treatment has developed significantly since 1996, most importantly through the Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, which substantially reformed the test for informed consent in negligence claims. However, Montgomery concerned the tort of negligence rather than trespass to the person and does not undermine the trespass analysis in Appleton v Garrett, which turned on the total absence of valid consent to unnecessary treatment. The article is therefore still accurate for the specific legal points it addresses.
