§ PUBLISHED JUDGMENT · 2015
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
[2015] UKSC 11·Supreme Court of the United Kingdom·11 March 2015
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.
Outcome
Claimant succeeded
Sum stated in judgment
Not stated
Claim type
Clinical Negligence
Decided
Appeal decision
§ WHAT HAPPENED
The facts, in brief.
Defendant: Lanarkshire Health Board
Injury: Shoulder dystocia during vaginal delivery; the baby suffered cerebral palsy from oxygen deprivation and a brachial plexus injury (Erb's palsy)
Specialty: Obstetrics · UK
§ WHAT THE COURT SAID
In the judgment’s own words.
“For these reasons, we would allow the appeal.”
The money
No sum stated; Supreme Court decided the consent/duty-to-warn issue and allowed the mother's appeal. Scottish appeal but the consent test applies across the UK.
§ WHY IT MATTERS
What this case shows.
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.
Contains information licensed under the Open Justice - Licence v2.0. Judgments from Find Case Law, The National Archives. Summaries are ours; amounts only where printed in the judgment.
This guide is general information about the law in England and Wales, not legal advice about your case. ClaimGavel is run by Costart Projects Ltd on behalf of Tomlin & Partners, a specialist medical negligence firm regulated by the SRA. The free assessment on this page is an AI overview to show you roughly where you stand; a solicitor confirms the position in a free, no-obligation conversation.