Claimant succeeded
[2015] UKSC 11·2015·Appeal decision
A diabetic mother of small stature was not told of the roughly 10 per cent risk of shoulder dystocia in a vaginal birth or offered a caesarean, and her son was born with cerebral palsy. The Supreme Court held doctors must tell patients about material risks and reasonable alternatives, replacing the old doctor-knows-best approach to consent.
Since Montgomery, a claim can succeed where a patient was not warned of a risk that a reasonable person in their position would consider significant, even if some doctors would not have mentioned it. It underpins most modern consent-based negligence claims.
Claimant succeeded£550,000
[2026] EWHC 1284 (KB)·2026·Liability decided at trial
A patient developed life-threatening pancreatitis after a gallstone-removal ERCP. The judge found the consultant never prescribed or instructed the standard preventive diclofenac suppository, so it was not given, and entered judgment for £550,000 against him.
Failing to give a recognised prophylactic drug before a procedure can be negligent even in private care. The prescribing doctor, not the hospital, carried the liability here.
Claim failed
[2022] EWHC 2735 (KB)·2022·Liability decided at trial
A man with end-stage kidney failure was given a single 400mg gentamicin dose for a chest infection and suffered permanent balance and hearing damage. His sister's claim failed because the judge accepted that a high dose was a reasonable choice for a worsening infection with sepsis risk, despite his renal impairment.
A drug dose that causes known side-effects is not automatically negligent if it was a reasonable clinical judgement in the circumstances. Departing from a hospital guideline is not itself proof of negligence.
Claimant succeeded
[2020] EWHC 2902 (QB)·2020·Liability decided at trial
A 79-year-old with macular degeneration was persuaded to have an intraocular lens implant in her better eye without proper informed consent, then developed raised eye pressure that the surgeon left untreated for five weeks. Stacey J found the surgeon negligent both in consenting and in delaying laser treatment, causing total blindness in that eye.
Private eye surgeons must obtain genuinely informed consent and act promptly on post-operative complications. A delay that materially contributes to permanent damage is enough for liability even if some harm had already occurred.
Claim failed
[2015] EWHC 2627 (QB)·2015·Liability decided at trial
A diabetic electrician's eye pressure rose to 40-56 mmHg in the days after retinal surgery and was managed with drugs rather than urgent further surgery. The judge held that continuing medical treatment was a logical clinical judgment supported by a responsible body of eye surgeons and dismissed the claim, including the late-raised consent argument.
Choosing medical management over urgent surgery is not negligent if a responsible body of specialists would have done the same. A Montgomery-style consent argument will fail if the patient would have followed the specialists' recommendation anyway.
Claimant succeeded
[2019] EWHC 2591 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial
The mother had accepted Down's screening at booking, but the sonographer recorded it as declined at the scan and nobody checked that she really understood and meant to refuse. The judge found the trust in breach and accepted she would have had invasive testing and a termination had the screening been done.
A patient's apparent refusal of screening must be properly checked; a quick question and a note saying declined can be negligent. Failing to offer or confirm antenatal screening can found a wrongful birth claim.
Settlement approved£50,000
[2016] EWHC 500 (QB)·2016·Settlement approved by the court
The Trust admitted it negligently failed to diagnose the claimant's torn aorta for 20 days, but disputed that this caused his later stroke; the claimant accepted a £50,000 offer just before trial, months after it had expired. This ruling decides who pays the legal costs, applying the normal rules so the claimant pays the defendant's costs for the period after the offer lapsed.
Accepting a settlement offer late can cost a claimant heavily in legal costs even when negligence is admitted. A missed aortic dissection was accepted as negligent, but the disputed stroke was never proved.
Claim failed
[2020] EWHC 359 (QB)·2020·Appeal decision
A 65-year-old inpatient who became confused at night fell out of bed and hurt her knees, and she argued that bed rails should have been fitted. The trial judge found that rails had not been recommended and would have been removed anyway, and the High Court refused to disturb those findings.
Bed rails are not automatically the safe option, because they can create their own risks for a confused and mobile patient. An appeal court will rarely overturn a trial judge's findings about what nursing staff decided or would have decided.
Claimant succeeded
[2014] EWHC 3016 (QB)·2014·Damages assessed at trial
A woman who was already paralysed from a spinal condition developed severe pressure sores during a long hospital stay, and the Trust admitted that this was negligent. The judge decided how much the sores and their consequences had added to her care needs and assessed her damages.
Where a patient already has serious health needs, the hospital is only responsible for the extra needs its negligence causes. The Court of Appeal later sent the damages back to be worked out again on that narrower basis.
Claim failed
[2017] EWCA Civ 1711·2017·Appeal decision
A man treated in the early 1980s sued in 2014, saying no one followed up his hormone condition until a new doctor restarted treatment in 2011. The Court of Appeal found he had known enough back in 1983 and that a 28-year delay had destroyed the records needed to defend the case.
Where very long delay means the records that would show what actually happened no longer exist, the court will usually hold the claimant to the deadline. Realising only years later that better treatment existed does not by itself restart the clock.