Every one a published decision of the courts of England and Wales, linked to its source.
Claimant succeeded
[2019] EWHC 2591 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial
The mother had accepted Down's screening at booking, but the sonographer recorded it as declined at the scan and nobody checked that she really understood and meant to refuse. The judge found the trust in breach and accepted she would have had invasive testing and a termination had the screening been done.
A patient's apparent refusal of screening must be properly checked; a quick question and a note saying declined can be negligent. Failing to offer or confirm antenatal screening can found a wrongful birth claim.
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.
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.
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
[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.
Claim failed£1.4M
[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.