Claimant succeeded£811,247
[2026] EWHC 657 (KB)·2026·Damages assessed at trial
The trust admitted it negligently failed to diagnose Daisy Lynch's developmental hip dysplasia at birth, so it was not picked up until she was three, by which time simple non-surgical treatment was no longer possible. She went through repeated hip operations and a total hip replacement at 22, and the court assessed her damages after an eight-day trial.
Even where liability is admitted, damages can be heavily contested, and the court can add a provisional damages order letting the claimant return for more if a specified complication later occurs. The award covered pain and suffering, lost earnings, future care and future surgery.
Claim failed
[2020] EWHC 158 (QB)·2020·Liability decided at trial
After an appendectomy a woman developed an abdominal mass that scans labelled a harmless omental infarction; it was actually a rare bacterial infection that later formed an abscess needing surgery. The judge accepted an early biopsy would have avoided this but held the doctors were not negligent in not doing one.
Hindsight showing that a test would have helped is not the same as proving it was negligent not to do it. Unusual infections that mimic benign findings on scans are a recognised trap for both clinicians and claimants.
Claim failed
[2019] EWHC 2280 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial
The mother argued the consultant should not have confidently reported a normal brain structure on the anomaly scan when the images were unclear. The judge accepted the consultant had scanned carefully and that a responsible body of specialists would have reached the same view, so negligence was not proved.
A missed abnormality on an antenatal scan is not automatically negligence; the claimant must show no responsible specialist would have reported as the clinician did. Careful, well-documented scanning is a strong defence.
Claimant succeeded
[2017] EWHC 88 (QB)·2017·Liability decided at trial
Repeated scans showed the baby's head growth dropping away along with other warning signs, but the mother was never referred to a specialist fetal medicine centre. The judge found the care at two of the scans fell below a reasonable standard because no reasonable clinician could have missed the risk of microcephaly.
Scan findings must be read together and over time, not in isolation; a pattern of concerning measurements calls for referral. This judgment decided breach only, so causation and damages were left for later.
Claimant succeeded
[2008] EWHC 2468 (QB)·2008·Liability decided at trial
A prenatal sample was cultured by a private laboratory and DNA-tested at an NHS laboratory, but the poor quality of the sample was not communicated and the report wrongly cleared the baby. The trial judge found both laboratories liable; the Court of Appeal later held the NHS trust was entitled to assume the sample was satisfactory and placed the whole liability on the private laboratory.
Laboratories in a testing chain must communicate doubts about sample quality; a report that overstates confidence in an unreliable result can be negligent. Who ends up liable can change on appeal, so the final position matters.
Claimant succeeded
[2005] EWCA Civ 1466·2005·Appeal decision
A leading fetal medicine specialist reported a normal brain on a specialist scan even though a routine scan had raised concerns, and the child was born with a severe brain malformation. The trial judge found no negligence, but the Court of Appeal by a majority held that the structures could not have been seen with reasonable care and skill, and found for the parents.
Where a highly specialised scan gets it badly wrong, the hospital must offer a possible explanation consistent with reasonable care; if it cannot, negligence may be inferred. Appeal courts will overturn a trial judge when the evidence cannot support the finding.
Claimant succeeded
[2004] EWHC 1392 (QB)·2004·Liability decided at trial
After a local scan found an abdominal wall defect, specialist scans reported a bladder was visible, ruling out the much more serious cloacal exstrophy; in fact there was no bladder. The judge held that a focused referral scan demanded a higher standard than a routine anomaly scan, and with proper persistence the error would have been exposed.
When a patient is referred to a specialist centre to answer a specific question, the standard of care rises to match that focus. Failing to use the available checks to confirm a critical finding can be negligent even where a routine scan might be excused.