Claim failed
[2025] EWHC 2025 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial
The claimant developed anal stenosis after a private haemorrhoidectomy and argued her haemorrhoids had been over-graded, non-surgical options were not discussed and the stenosis risk was not explained. The judge found the grading was correct, alternatives were discussed and the risk was disclosed on the consent form and in the information leaflet, so the claim was dismissed.
Documented consent, including a signed form and a written leaflet naming the specific complication, can be decisive in defeating a Montgomery consent claim.
Claim failed
[2024] EWHC 2338 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial
Admitted with perforated diverticulitis, the claimant had a laparoscopic washout and deteriorated about 36 hours later, needing an emergency Hartmann's procedure with a stoma and intensive care. She alleged she had asked for a colorectal referral, was improperly moved to private care and was not properly consented, but the judge found none of this proved and dismissed the claims against both the surgeon and the trust.
Consent disputes turn on evidence of what was actually discussed; where the records and the surgeon's account show the alternative procedure was explained, a claim based on inadequate consent is likely to fail.
Claim failed
[2018] EWHC 343 (QB)·2018·Liability decided at trial
Five days after surgery to reverse his ileostomy the 60-year-old claimant developed sepsis and his whole colon had to be removed because its blood supply had failed. He alleged the surgeon had damaged the marginal artery, but Yip J was not satisfied that the injury was caused by negligence rather than a naturally occurring clot.
A serious complication after bowel surgery is not itself proof of negligence; the claimant must show on the balance of probabilities that a surgical error, rather than an unavoidable event, caused the harm.
Claim failed
[2025] EWHC 2576 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial
After a sleeve gastrectomy the claimant had trouble swallowing; the surgeon performed a gastroscopy and balloon dilatation, after which the sleeve leaked. The judge found no breach of duty in the post-operative care or the dilatation and dismissed the claim despite the very serious consequences.
A bad outcome after a recognised complication is not enough; the claimant must show the treatment decision fell outside what a responsible body of surgeons would do. Sympathy for the patient does not change the legal test.
Claimant succeeded
[2024] EWHC 3156 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial
A young woman with cerebral palsy had a PEG feeding tube inserted and was found unresponsive two days later with peritonitis and sepsis. The judge rejected the doctor's account of how the tube was fixed, found it was placed under too much tension, and entered judgment for the claimant.
Where a clinician's recollection is unreliable and contradicted by the physical evidence, the court can find a procedure was done negligently. Causation may still be limited where a pre-existing condition would have deteriorated anyway.
Claim failed
[2023] EWHC 2803 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
Mr Ward's stomach was perforated during keyhole removal of a gastric band; the hole was not seen during the operation and was repaired the following morning after he deteriorated. The judge found the perforation was not visible at the time and so there was no negligent failure to identify and repair it.
A perforation missed during surgery is only negligent if there was visible evidence the surgeon should have seen. Post-operative pain that leads to timely re-operation may not give rise to a claim.
Claimant succeeded£298,617
[2023] EWHC 42 (KB)·2023·Liability and damages decided at trial
An engineer had a then-novel transanal rectal cancer operation without being told of the risks to sexual, urinary and bowel function, and was consented on the day of surgery. The judge found the trust failed to follow NICE guidance, accepted he would have chosen a conventional laparoscopic operation, and awarded £298,616.73.
Consent taken on the day of surgery without explaining material risks or alternatives can found a claim even if the surgery itself was competently done. New or learning-curve procedures need particularly careful counselling.
Claim failed
[2020] EWHC 310 (QB)·2020·Liability decided at trial
Ms Pepper argued she had only agreed to a Whipple's operation if an intra-operative biopsy proved cancer, and the biopsy was negative. The judge found she had consented to surgery if the biopsy was positive or the pancreas looked suspicious, that intra-operative biopsies are known to be unreliable, and dismissed the claim.
Consent disputes turn on what was actually agreed before surgery, and courts give weight to contemporaneous notes and what a reasonable patient would have decided. A negative result on an unreliable test does not by itself make surgery negligent.
Claim failed
[2019] EWHC 2488 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial
The claimant was discharged two days after a sleeve gastrectomy despite nausea, vomiting and pain, and weeks later developed severe sepsis from a leak. The judge found the discharge and follow-up were not negligent and that earlier action would not have changed the outcome.
Early discharge after bariatric surgery is not negligent if symptoms at the time were within the expected range. Claims fail if the leak would have developed and been treated the same way regardless.
Claimant succeeded
[2018] EWHC 1917 (QB)·2018·Liability and damages decided at trial
A 40-year-old had gastric bypass surgery and developed a leak that was not diagnosed until a day after clear warning signs. Yip J found the trust liable for several failings and assessed general damages at £100,000 plus care and therapy costs.
After weight-loss surgery, signs of a leak need to be acted on promptly; delayed diagnosis can turn a treatable complication into life-changing injury. General damages reflect the whole picture of pain, disability and psychological harm.
Claimant succeeded£92,391
[2013] EWCA Civ 117·2013·Appeal decision
Mrs Thomas's bile duct was injured during keyhole gallbladder removal and the surgeon also failed to arrange fluid and kidney monitoring when she was readmitted unwell. The trial judge found both failures negligent and awarded £92,391; the Court of Appeal dismissed the surgeon's appeal.
Bile duct injury during gallbladder surgery is not automatically negligent, but a court can find negligence where the anatomy was recognised and the injury still occurred, and separately for inadequate monitoring afterwards.
Claim failed
[2012] EWHC 2335 (QB)·2012·Liability decided at trial
Mrs Clements alleged that during bowel cancer surgery the surgeons twisted the bowel's mesentery before rejoining it and failed to check, causing obstruction, a second operation and catastrophic complications. The judge found the join was properly formed and the later obstruction was caused by adhesions, so there was no negligence.
Serious complications after surgery do not by themselves prove the operation was done negligently. The court will weigh the operating surgeons' evidence against what was found at the second operation.