"Scarring has emerged and proved permanent."
An investment banker is suing a beauty salon for £50,000, claiming she was “scarred for life” after a “botched” laser hair removal procedure.
Sunna Firdaus said she suffered burns during treatment at Skintology Ltd in Preston Park, Wembley, in September 2020. She claimed the burns left permanent scars on her chin.
Ms Firdaus, a product developer at BNP Paribas, alleged “excessive heat” was used during the procedure, causing a “visible wound” that led to “scabbing, itching and oozing”.
She is seeking damages for the alleged physical and psychological impact of her injuries.
Skintology denied wrongdoing and argued Ms Firdaus was given “fair warning” that burns were a possible risk.
In court papers filed at Central London County Court, Ms Firdaus’ barrister, Moshin Malik, detailed her case.
He said: “The claimant experienced discomfort and pain during the procedure and a visible wound was caused.
“She suffered personal injury as a result. There were liquid secretions and scabbing soon afterwards.
“The claimant reattended the defendant’s salon for further treatment on the assurance that this injury would improve as a result.
“This proved futile and healing proved only partial. Scarring has emerged and proved permanent.
“The claimant suffered permanent facial scarring as a result of the accident. This followed a burning sensation during the treatment followed by scabbing, itching and oozing, which lasted for an extended period.
“Once the injury healed, scarring ensued.”
The court documents blame “excess heat” for the injury and state Ms Firdaus has been left with two noticeable scars.
According to the papers: “These are mature facial scars which are not amenable to further treatment, though the cosmetic appearance might be somewhat improved with surgery.”
It is claimed Ms Fridaus has also suffered a “degree of psychological reaction”.
At a pre-trial hearing, Mr Malik told Judge Alan Saggerson:
“My client was only young at the time of the injury.
“The scarring was wholly and exclusively caused by a burn as a result of the hair removal.”
He asked for permission to present expert evidence from plastic surgery and psychiatric specialists.
Judge Saggerson agreed: “It seems to me that the reports of both are necessary.
“On liability, the issue is whether what happened to this lady was an inherent, albeit minor risk, of the procedure of which she was duly warned and therefore whether informed consent was given—whether this was an unavoidable risk in a minority of cases.”
Daniel Tresigne, representing Skintology, said: “The core issue is whether or not the treatment was administered negligently.”
The case is set for a three-day trial in 2026.
Loading ...