These claims often turn on the consent form and the information leaflet. Documented consent has defeated several of the cases here.
Claimant succeeded
[2025] EWHC 2121 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial
A 25-year-old with congenital heart disease suffered a severe brain injury when her aorta was cut during a high-risk repeat sternotomy and it took around 24 minutes to get her onto full bypass. The judge found the surgeon should have exposed the femoral vessels in advance (saving around 13 minutes) and that consent was deficient; she would still have gone ahead with the operation, but with that precaution taken.
Surgeons planning a known high-risk operation must take reasonable precautions beforehand and tell the patient about them; a court can find negligence in planning and consent even where the intra-operative error itself was not negligent.
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.
Claimant succeeded£1.3M
[2023] EWHC 3115 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
Before bowel cancer surgery, anaesthetists made three failed epidural attempts while the patient was awake and then seven more after putting her under anaesthetic, one of which pierced her spinal cord. Ritchie J held the anaesthetist should have obtained her informed consent before the unconscious attempts and offered alternatives, and that this failure caused the injury.
Consent is not a one-off: when a procedure changes course (here, moving to unconscious epidural attempts), the patient must be told of the options and risks again. The full agreed £1.3m followed from that single consent failure.
Claimant succeeded
[2023] EWHC 19 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
The mother of twins asked for a caesarean during labour and was refused; the second twin was delivered 6.5 minutes later than she should have been and suffered damaging oxygen deprivation. Ritchie J found the Trust negligent for the delay and held that without it the whole of her brain injury would have been avoided.
A delay of only a few minutes in delivery can be negligent and can be enough to cause the entire injury. A mother's reasonable request for a caesarean during labour should be properly considered and explained, not simply refused.
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.