Celebrity make-up artist wins £154k over ‘traumatic’ thigh-sculpting operation

A celebrity make-up artist has won over £154,000 damages against a top cosmetic surgeon she accused of making her feel like a “freak”.

Tracie Giles sued over an operation conducted by Dr Alexandra Chambers to sculpt her thighs.

The result was “traumatic” and left her too embarrassed to go to the beach or spa, she told London’s High Court.

It had left her “top heavy”‘ and she needed a breast reduction to compensate.

The Knightsbridge beautician, 52, who counts Katie Price among her clients, accused Dr Chambers of draining too much fat from her legs in a “grossly over-aggressive” VASER liposuction procedure in August 2012.

She said that six litres, around 13 pints of fat, were taken from her, and she “felt like she was going to die” after the procedure, which lasted several hours.

She also said the doctor called her a “weakling” in the weeks after the operation.

Dr Chambers, founding president of the British Association of Body Sculpting with a practice in Wimpole Street, denied all the claims against her and said it was closer to four litres of fat that was taken.

But Judge Graham Wood QC ruled on Monday she must pay Ms Giles a total of £154,301 in damages, plus an interim payment of £240,000 towards her legal costs.

The judge ruled it was “more likely than not” that Ms Giles “did not request a sculptured and muscled high definition appearance” requiring the removal of substantial quantities of fat”.

But Dr Chambers “chose to provide a liposuction procedure which had been neither requested nor required”.

He said: “I am satisfied that if (Ms Giles) had had a measured degree of liposuction applied to selected areas, as she had requested and expected, the amount of fat removed would have been significantly controlled, and she would not have had the consequences of this highly unsatisfactory cosmetic result which now requires extensive revision.

“The claimant is entitled to be compensated for the damages which flow from these consequences.”

Ms Giles’s lawyers said: “Ms Giles is pleased that the court has found in herfavour and wants to thank the court for its careful consideration of the factsthat gave rise to the claim.”

Legal firm Kingsley Napley said Ms Giles was “keen” lessons were learned from her case and added: “This has been a stressful process for Ms Giles and she looks forward to being able to now move on.”

A statement issued on behalf of Dr Chambers stressed the judge did not find “that the treatment we provided was negligent” and “discussion in the judgment was around the specifics of what the patient wanted to achieve by having cosmetic surgery”.

“One of the main problems of cosmetic surgery is in understanding a patient’s objectives, and trying to evaluate whether they will be satisfied with results that can be reasonably achieved.

“On discharge, six weeks after her procedure, the patient professed to be very satisfied with the result of her surgery.

“However, six months later, when she claimed to be having issues, she did not return to our clinic to ask for our help.

“We provide a very high standard of service to all our patients, and it was disappointing to see that Ms Giles decided to pursue a legal recourse instead of letting us help her.

“Furthermore, although Ms Giles also made a complaint against Dr Chambers to the General Medical Council, they closed the case with no action.”