Court awards damages in unlicenced beauty treatment claim

The Supreme Court has awarded damages of around £5,500 after a beauty treatment carried out by an unlicenced practitioner left a woman hospitalised with chemical burns.

A civil claim was filed against the unlicenced practitioner who had carried out a £35 eyelash extension service from her home last August.

As a result of this treatment, the claimant had suffered chemical burns to her eyes, spent three days in hospital and had to cancel her holiday.

The court heard how the claimant had received eyelash extension treatments from the defendant since 2021 without incident.

But, last August, the claimant reported a mild stinging sensation during the service.

“The defendant acknowledged this but reassured her that it was likely caused by fumes from a newly opened tube of glue,” registrar Karl Tonna said.

The claimant’s condition worsened later that day.

“Her eyes became red, swollen, and painful,” Mr Tonna said.

She contacted the defendant, who recommended using eye drops and offered to remove the lashes the following day.

That evening, the claimant attended hospital, where she was admitted for three days.

“Medical records confirm a diagnosis of bilateral chemical burns,” Mr Tonna said.

“The defendant promptly refunded the £35 she had received for the treatment.”

The hospital stay meant that the claimant was unable to travel to a planned holiday in Bali and she was also unable to work for several days.

She was not entitled to sick leave due to having just started a new job.

In response, the defendant told the court that she had used the same brand of glue she had always used, albeit from a new tube.

She said the claimant had not complained during the procedure and that she would have ceased treatment if so.

The court heard how the defendant described her work as a hobby and not a business.

“She was not insured and had not registered with the Office of Fair Trading,” Mr Tonna said.

“However, she had completed a course in eyelash extension application and maintained a small number of paying clients.”

Upon hearing the evidence, Mr Tonna said the principles of negligence were well established in this matter.

Mr Tonna said the defendant breached her duty of care and that whether she considers this activity a hobby is immaterial.

“Those who hold themselves out as providing skilled services for payment owe a duty to exercise reasonable care,” he said.

He added that the defendant should have paused the service and assessed any skin reaction before continuing.

“The defendant explained that she only conducted patch tests for first-time clients,” Mr Tonna said.

“That approach is not, in my judgment, a safe or reasonable practice in cases involving the application of chemicals near the eyes. No expert evidence was adduced to support the defendant’s policy.”

The court also heard that the defendant was uninsured as she considered this a hobby despite having paying clients.

Mr Tonna said that this case serves as a reminder that those engaging in beauty treatments or other “cottage industries” should consider obtaining adequate insurance, even if the work is undertaken part-time or informally.

He awarded damages for loss of earnings, loss of holiday including pre-paid parking fees, court fees, and the claimant’s pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

In total, the claimant was awarded £5,546.83 in damages to be paid by the defendant.