Medical negligence in elite sport: the High Court’s judgment in Ebanks‑Blake v Professor James Calder

Mr Sylvan Ebanks‑Blake (the claimant), a former professional footballer, fractured his left fibula during a match on 1 April 2013. He was referred to Professor James Calder, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon specialising in treating elite athletes. While the fracture required reduction and fixation, Professor Calder also opted to perform an ankle arthroscopy, including debridement of scar tissue, removal of loose cartilage, and a microfracture procedure. This additional ankle surgery became the focal point of the negligence claim.

The case went to a split trial in July 2025, where the court focused solely on the issue of liability – namely, whether the defendant breached their duty of care to the claimant and whether that breach caused the alleged harm. 

Mrs Justice Lambert concluded that Professor Calder’s decision to undertake an ankle arthroscopy was neither reasonable nor logical, and therefore amounted to negligent treatment. 

The court also found that the procedure accelerated degenerative change in the ankle and contributed to the premature curtailment of the claimant’s professional football career.

The claimant’s position can be neatly summarised as follows: 

• his ankle had been pain-free for eight years despite earlier injury-related scarring and degenerative change
• the 2013 tackle caused only a modest acute injury insufficient to justify invasive arthroscopy
• the microfracture technique which the defendant used was inappropriate for the size of the lesion present and caused inflammation and surface damage 
• conservative management would have allowed the him to continue playing at a Premier League or Championship level for a further three to five years

The defendant’s position was that during the tackle in 2013 the claimant sustained significant acute injuries affecting two structures within the ankle: the syndesmosis and the cartilage on the talar bone. In the defendant’s view, both of those injuries mandated intervention and it would have been negligent not to have undertaken the arthroscopy and other procedures. 

The judge held that the operative procedures caused or materially contributed to the claimant’s ankle pain, instability and accelerated degeneration. She concluded that, but for the arthroscopy, the claimant would have returned to a pain‑free baseline and continued playing at a high level for a further three to five years. 

The judgment offers important insights for both medical negligence practitioners and those working within sports law: 

1. elite sport does not alter the standard of care clinical care and that medical decision‑making in elite sport must adhere to the same legal standards as any other clinical context
2. performance pressure, commercial interests, or an athlete’s desire to return quickly do not dilute the required standard of care
3.  the importance of treating and advising patients with reasonable care and skill, particularly when their careers are dependent on such advice 

The matter will now proceed to a quantum trial, which will determine the value of the claim and in particular the value of his shortened career and other losses associated with the negligence. 

Russell-Cooke’s medical negligence specialists within the sports law team have experience acting for athletes impacted by negligence.