In English law, medical negligence is a type of clinical negligence where a healthcare professional or provider breaches the duty of care owed to a patient, causing injury or avoidable harm.
A medical negligence claim requires proof that a duty of care was owed, that the treatment fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner (the “Bolam” standard as qualified by “Bolitho”), and that the breach caused the injury complained of. Causation is often contested and may involve issues such as delayed diagnosis, failure to treat, or avoidable complications.
Typical allegations include misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis, errors in prescribing or administering medication, failures in monitoring and follow-up, surgical mistakes, poor infection control, inadequate consent discussions, and negligent care in hospital or GP settings. Claims may also arise from system failures, such as staffing shortages or unsafe protocols, where they lead to substandard care.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee: established the professional practice test for breach of duty.
Bolitho v City and Hackney HA: confirmed the court can reject expert opinion that is not capable of withstanding logical analysis.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: reshaped the law on informed consent, focusing on material risks and patient autonomy.
Chester v Afshar: addressed causation in consent cases and the patient’s right to make an informed choice.
Where medical negligence is established, a claimant may recover damages for pain and suffering, loss of earnings, care and assistance, treatment costs, and future losses where relevant. Claims are evidence-heavy and typically rely on medical records, independent expert reports, and detailed analysis of breach and causation.
Medical negligence claims play an important role in patient safety and accountability, particularly in cases involving avoidable injury, delayed diagnosis, and failures in consent. They also influence clinical governance, risk management, and the standards expected of healthcare providers.
February 14, 2026
A man who killed three people during a psychotic episode was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. He sued healthcare providers for negligence, claiming damages for his detention and other losses. The Supreme Court held that the illegality defence barred his civil claim despite his lack of...
December 12, 2025
A child with a shunt suffered brain damage when a blocked shunt was not diagnosed by telephone. The GP failed to ask specific questions that would have revealed symptoms indicating shunt blockage. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial, finding the trial judge had improperly applied...
October 5, 2025
A very premature baby suffered severe visual impairment from retrolental fibroplasia and sued the health authority, alleging negligent oxygen management. The House of Lords held that McGhee did not alter the ordinary burden of proving causation, set aside earlier judgments, and ordered a retrial on causation. Facts The infant plaintiff,...
October 3, 2025
Mrs Sidaway underwent cervical spine surgery and suffered partial paralysis, a recognised but small risk of the procedure. She claimed her surgeon negligently failed to warn of this risk. The House of Lords held that, applying the Bolam test, there was no negligence and rejected a general doctrine of informed...
October 3, 2025
Mr Bolam, a voluntary psychiatric patient, suffered rare pelvic fractures during unmodified electro-convulsive therapy. He alleged negligence for not using relaxant drugs, restraints, or giving warning. The court held doctors are not negligent if acting in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion. Facts The plaintiff, John Hector Bolam,...
October 3, 2025
Two patients became paralysed after spinal anaesthetics administered at a hospital. Phenol had seeped through invisible cracks in glass ampoules into the anaesthetic. The Court of Appeal held neither the hospital nor the anaesthetist was negligent, as the risk of invisible cracks was not foreseeable in 1947. Facts Two working...
October 3, 2025
A severely visually impaired woman underwent a negligently performed sterilisation and gave birth to a healthy child. She claimed child-rearing costs, including extra costs due to her disability. The House of Lords upheld McFarlane, refused such costs, but created a £15,000 conventional award for loss of autonomy. Facts Ms Karina...
October 2, 2025
Mrs Parkinson’s sterilisation was negligently performed, leading to the birth of her disabled son Scott. The Court of Appeal held she could recover the additional costs of caring for his disabilities, but not the ordinary costs of his upbringing, distinguishing McFarlane on disabled children. Facts The defendant NHS Trust managed...
October 2, 2025
A psychiatric patient, Armstrong, murdered four‑year‑old Rosie Palmer. Her mother sued health authorities, alleging negligent diagnosis, treatment and failure to detain him, and claiming for her own psychiatric injury. The Court of Appeal held there was no duty of care to unidentifiable victims and her secondary victim claim failed. Appeal...
October 2, 2025
A mother witnessed her ten-month-old baby have a fit in hospital due to negligent treatment, was given incorrect reassurances, then learned of severe brain damage, and held her son as he died 36 hours later. The court held this constituted a single horrifying event permitting recovery for psychiatric injury as...
September 30, 2025
Mrs Montgomery, a diabetic woman of small stature, was not warned by her obstetrician about the 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia during vaginal delivery. Her son suffered severe disabilities during birth. The Supreme Court held doctors must inform patients of material risks, departing from the Bolam test for disclosure of...
September 30, 2025
Following a negligently performed vasectomy and incorrect advice that Mr McFarlane was sterile, Mrs McFarlane became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy fifth child. The House of Lords held that while the mother could recover damages for pain and suffering from pregnancy and childbirth, neither parent could recover the...
September 29, 2025
A GP negligently failed to refer a patient for genetic testing for haemophilia carrier status and gave incorrect advice. The patient later gave birth to a child with both haemophilia and autism. The Court of Appeal held the GP liable only for losses related to haemophilia, not autism, as autism...
September 24, 2025
A 13-year-old boy fell and fractured his hip. The hospital negligently failed to diagnose the injury for five days. He developed avascular necrosis causing permanent disability. The House of Lords held that since there was a 75% probability the damage was inevitable from the fall itself, causation was not established...
September 24, 2025
Mr Gregg's GP negligently failed to diagnose cancer, delaying treatment by nine months. His prospects of disease-free survival fell from 42% to 25%. The House of Lords (3-2) dismissed his appeal, holding that loss of a chance of recovery is not recoverable damage in clinical negligence where the claimant cannot...
September 22, 2025
Mrs De Freitas sued Mr O'Brien, a spinal surgeon, for negligence after a second back operation caused her permanent disability. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that a small body of specialist spinal surgeons could constitute a responsible body of medical opinion under the Bolam test, and...
September 16, 2025
Miss Chester underwent spinal surgery without being warned of a 1-2% risk of nerve damage. The risk materialised, causing partial paralysis. Although she could not prove she would never have had surgery, the House of Lords held the surgeon liable, modifying conventional causation principles to protect patient autonomy and the...
September 16, 2025
A two-year-old boy suffered brain damage after cardiac arrest caused by respiratory failure. The doctor negligently failed to attend when called but argued intubation would not have been performed anyway. The House of Lords clarified that expert medical opinion must be logically defensible to satisfy the Bolam test. Facts Patrick...
September 14, 2025
The claimant suffered brain damage after aspirating vomit while hospitalised. The negligent failure to properly resuscitate her after a procedure contributed to her weakened state alongside non-negligent pancreatitis. The Court of Appeal held that where cumulative causes contribute to injury, a claimant need only prove the negligent cause made a...
September 14, 2025
The claimant's father was diagnosed with Huntington's Disease while she was pregnant. Despite knowing the diagnosis carried a 50% hereditary risk to her, clinicians respected the father's confidentiality wishes and did not inform her. She later discovered she had the disease and sued, arguing the defendants owed her a duty...
September 12, 2025
Parents claimed damages for psychiatric injury after discovering organs had been removed and retained from their deceased children during post-mortems without their knowledge or consent. The court held that while doctors owed a duty of care to explain organ retention possibilities, there is no tort of wrongful interference with a...
May 23, 2026
National Case Law Archive
May 23, 2026
National Case Law Archive
May 23, 2026
National Case Law Archive