§ CASE LIBRARY

Real medical negligence cases,
every one linked to the judgment.

Published judgments of the courts of England and Wales, summarised in plain English: what went wrong, what the court decided, and the sum where the judgment states it. We include the claims that failed as well as the ones that succeeded, because they show what you have to prove.

Judgments

44

With the sum stated

13

Claimant succeeded

26

Claim failed

16

G
ClaimGavel Assistant
● Online · medical negligence · free & confidential
FREE
TELL US WHAT HAPPENED — TYPE HERE

Start typing — your likely claim, value and time limit appear here.

Describe what happened (a sentence or two) to begin.

Free · confidential · not legal adviceEngland
Claim failed

Ritchie v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust

[2026] EWCC 50·2026·Liability decided at trial

A widow brought a dependency and bereavement claim against the hospital after her husband died from an infection picked up during heart surgery. Because he had already settled his own claim in full against the equipment manufacturer while alive, the court held no Fatal Accidents Act claim survived for his dependants.

A dependant's claim under the Fatal Accidents Act only exists if the deceased could still have sued at the moment of death. Settling a claim in the patient's lifetime can extinguish the family's later dependency claim, so settlement terms need careful thought where death is foreseeable.

Claim failed

Callum Joe Guest v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

[2026] EWHC 704 (KB)·2026·Liability decided at trial

During long spinal surgery for scoliosis and chest wall deformity the claimant deteriorated, arrested while being turned over, and was left with severe sight loss. He alleged the anaesthetist negligently failed to treat a raised potassium reading, but the judge found that reading was spurious and the arrest was caused by a pulmonary embolism, so the claim failed.

Even after a devastating complication a claim fails if the court finds the true cause was a non-negligent event, so proving the mechanism of injury is often the decisive issue.

Claim failed

LMN (a protected party, by his mother and litigation friend PQR) v Swansea Bay University Health Board

[2025] EWHC 3402 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial

The claimant alleged the registrar at the Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, delayed delivery after a pathological CTG in a labour complicated by pre-eclampsia and an impacted fetal head. The judge found the plan of fetal blood sampling, attempted forceps and then caesarean met the standards of the day and dismissed the claim.

A poor outcome after a difficult delivery is not enough; the claimant must show specific decisions fell below acceptable practice at the time and that earlier action would have avoided the injury. The material contribution argument does not help if no negligent cause of delay is proved.

Claim failed

Julia Tosh v Vivek Gupta

[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

Rebecca Hepworth v Dr Amanda Coates

[2025] EWHC 1907 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial

A 27-year-old flight attendant saw her GP with severe back and leg pain, having mentioned perianal numbness in a message two days earlier; she had emergency surgery for cauda equina syndrome four days after the consultation. The judge accepted that the GP asked the right red-flag questions and that the patient answered no, so there was no breach of duty.

In cauda equina cases the court looks closely at what safety-netting questions the GP actually asked and what the patient answered on the day. Contemporaneous notes and messages matter greatly for both sides.

Claim failed

Philippa Caroline Deakin-Stephenson v Nebil Behar and Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

[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

PXE (by his mother and litigation friend DSD) v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

[2024] EWHC 2023 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial

The mother's recorded history of kidney scarring was said to require consultant-led care and serial growth scans, which were not arranged; the baby was born prematurely at Solihull Hospital with brain damage. The judge held that classifying the pregnancy as low risk was within acceptable practice in 2008, so there was no breach of duty.

Antenatal risk-assessment claims turn on whether the mother's history genuinely required extra monitoring under the guidance of the time. Hindsight that scans might have helped is not the legal test.

Claim failed

Karen Spellman v Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust

[2024] EWHC 2011 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial

Ms Spellman alleged a hospital radiologist missed cauda equina compression on an MRI scan taken the day after her fall, delaying diagnosis until private surgery six days later. Damages had been agreed at £300,000 if she won, but the judge found the scan showed only mild stenosis with no compression to be found, so the claim failed.

Parties sometimes agree the damages figure in advance and fight only liability, so a claimant who loses on breach of duty recovers nothing. Expert evidence on what the scan actually showed was decisive.

Claim failed

Runciman v University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust

[2024] EWHC 1800 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial

A widower claimed that doctors at Southampton General misdiagnosed his wife's rare cerebral venous thrombosis as a stroke, gave her clot-busting drugs and delayed the correct treatment, leading to her death. The judge found the clinicians acted reasonably on the presentation and that even earlier correct treatment would probably not have saved her.

A tragic outcome after a rare condition is missed does not by itself prove negligence; the question is whether a reasonable body of doctors would have acted the same way on the information available. Causation must be proved separately.

Claim failed

Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust; Polmear and another v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust; Purchase v Ahmed

[2024] UKSC 1·2024·Appeal decision

Three families sought damages for psychiatric injury after watching a relative die from a condition that doctors had negligently failed to diagnose. The Supreme Court (Lord Burrows dissenting) held that doctors do not owe relatives a duty to protect them from the shock of witnessing a patient's death or medical crisis.

Relatives who develop a psychiatric illness from witnessing a loved one's death caused by medical negligence generally cannot claim as secondary victims. Their remedies are limited to the Fatal Accidents Act dependency and bereavement claims.

Claim failed

Jacqueline Beatty v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust

[2023] EWHC 3163 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial

Ms Beatty, in hospital with severe cellulitis, developed ischaemic toes; a vascular surgeon diagnosed vasculitis rather than an embolism and did not order a CT angiogram, and she later needed a below-knee amputation. The judge found the surgeon's diagnosis was supported by a responsible body of medical opinion and dismissed the claim.

A diagnosis that turns out to be wrong is not automatically negligent; if a responsible body of specialists would have reached the same view on the information available, the claim fails under the Bolam test.

Claim failed

Edward Graham v Dr Simone Altaf

[2023] EWHC 156 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial

A three-year-old was diagnosed with tonsillitis by a GP registrar, deteriorated over the next two days and was then referred to hospital, where meningococcal meningitis was diagnosed. The court found no causative breach of duty and dismissed the claim.

Meningitis claims against GPs often fail because early symptoms genuinely resemble common childhood infections; the claimant must show both that the GP fell below a reasonable standard and that earlier referral would have changed the outcome.

Claim failed£1.4M

Khan v Meadows

[2021] UKSC 21·2021·Appeal decision

A GP negligently failed to arrange proper testing, so a woman wrongly believed she did not carry the haemophilia gene and went on to have a son with haemophilia who also had autism. The Supreme Court held the GP was liable only for the haemophilia-related costs, because the purpose of the advice was to guard against that risk, not the unrelated risk of autism.

Damages are limited to losses falling within the scope of the duty the doctor undertook. Even where negligence clearly led to a child's birth, unrelated conditions that the advice was never meant to address are not recoverable.

Claim failed

Rebeccah Taylor v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

[2019] EWHC 1043 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial

A 4.93kg baby's shoulder became stuck at delivery and the registrar used moderate downward traction to free her, causing a permanent brachial plexus injury. The judge found that traction of that kind was accepted practice in 1992, even though it is now avoided, so the claim failed.

Negligence is judged by the standards at the time of the birth, not today's guidance, which is decisive in many historic Erb's palsy claims. An agreed damages figure is worth nothing unless breach of duty is proved.

Claim failed

David John Saunders v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

[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

Shah v North West London Hospital NHS Trust

[2013] EWHC 4088 (QB)·2013·Liability and damages decided at trial

A widower and four children claimed after Mrs Shah, who had collapsed with leg weakness days after giving birth, died from an undetected arterial tear. The court found the A&E doctor's failure to check leg pulses was not negligent and would not have changed the outcome, so the claim failed.

Fatal claims need proof both that care fell below a reasonable standard and that better care would probably have saved the patient. The judgment nonetheless shows how dependency damages for a spouse and children are built up from the deceased's earnings and services.

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.

§ HOW TO READ THESE

Most claims never reach a judgment. They settle privately, and settlement sums are confidential. Judgments surface when liability is disputed, when damages are fought over, or when a court must approve a settlement for a child or someone who lacks capacity. That is why approvals and damages trials are where the public figures come from.

Amounts are only what the judgment prints. Where a case shows a lump sum plus periodical payments, the yearly payments continue for life and can be worth far more than the lump sum. Where no figure is shown, the court decided fault but the money was settled or assessed elsewhere.

Plain-English guides built on these cases →

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.