Three claims that succeeded, a Supreme Court case on the limits of a GP's duty, and two that failed on the evidence.
Claimant succeeded
[2024] EWHC 390 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial
Mr Gahir went to his GP with fever, severe headache, nausea and confusion; the GP diagnosed migraine, and he was not admitted to hospital until 55 hours later, when herpes simplex encephalitis was treated with acyclovir. The judge found the combination of fever, headache and confusion required urgent hospital referral and that earlier treatment would have left him far less disabled.
Fever, headache and confusion together are a recognised red flag for brain infection, and a GP who attributes them to migraine without arranging urgent admission may be found negligent. The judge accepted the family's account of the patient's confusion during the consultation.
Claimant succeeded
[2025] EWHC 1261 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial
Ms Hodgson saw a locum GP who suspected pelvic inflammatory disease but did not examine her or arrange urgent follow-up, and a second GP reviewing her blood results by telephone did not refer her for examination. The delay in treatment led to an abscess, removal of a fallopian tube and chronic pelvic pain.
When a GP suspects a serious infection, the court expects an examination or urgent referral to rule it out, and a telephone review of test results does not replace that. Both GPs were held liable, with damages to be decided separately.
Claimant succeeded
[2024] EWHC 2809 (KB)·2024·Damages assessed at trial
A GP saw Ms Cullen three times over five weeks with a persistent cough, sore throat and tiredness but did not make an urgent cancer referral; her laryngeal cancer was diagnosed at stage III about three months later. Liability was admitted, and the trial dealt with disputed care costs and the defendant's allegation that she had been fundamentally dishonest, which the judge rejected.
A delayed cancer referral claim turns on what extra treatment the delay caused; here the admitted delay meant chemotherapy, a total laryngectomy and neck dissections that earlier diagnosis would have avoided. Social media posts relied on to allege dishonesty were found not to contradict her evidence.
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.
Claim failed
[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
[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
[2018] EWHC 1345 (QB)·2018·Liability decided at trial
A man with back pain and new groin numbness phoned his GP, who told him to go to A&E rather than ringing the hospital orthopaedic team directly. Master Cook found the GP had credible expert support for that approach and struck out the claim against him.
Sending a suspected cauda equina patient to A&E by ambulance can be a defensible GP response. A GP claim will fail at an early stage if a responsible body of GPs would have done the same.
Claimant succeeded
[2019] EWHC 283 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial
A woman with a previous pulmonary embolism saw her GP with chest pain and breathlessness and was diagnosed with a strained muscle; she died the next morning. The GP admitted he should have referred her to hospital, and Stewart J found she would on the clear balance of probabilities have survived with anticoagulation and monitoring.
Chest pain and breathlessness in someone with a past clot is a red flag needing same-day hospital referral. Where survival chances on admission would have been very high, the court will find the death was caused by the failure to refer.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 351 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
A woman with cystitis took a leftover antibiotic, vomited for days and drank large amounts of water; she saw two GPs on the same day and collapsed with seizures early the next morning with a sodium level of 105. Hickinbottom J held neither GP was required to admit her to hospital on what they saw, and the claim was dismissed.
A GP is judged on the symptoms presented at the time, not on what a later blood test revealed. Persistent vomiting alone did not oblige hospital admission on these facts.
Claimant succeeded£7,500
[2013] EWHC 600 (QB)·2013·Liability and damages decided at trial
A woman with months of bloating and bowel symptoms was urgently referred by her GP, but the judge found he never told her and the hospital lost the letter, so nothing happened until she was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer seven months later. The GP was liable for the delay but only £7,500 was awarded because the delay was not shown to have shortened her life.
A GP must tell the patient an urgent referral has been made so it can be chased. Damages for delayed cancer diagnosis are limited to what the delay actually caused, which may be modest.
Claimant succeeded
[2012] EWHC 3063 (QB)·2012·Liability decided at trial
A man showed his GP an itchy, bleeding growth in his groin and was told it was a harmless wart; seven months later it was found to be a thick, ulcerated melanoma. Bean J rejected the claim that earlier treatment would have cured him but found the delay cut his life expectancy by three years.
An itching or bleeding skin lesion should prompt specialist referral, not reassurance. Even where cure cannot be proved, compensation can be recovered for a proven shortening of life.
Claimant succeeded£150,000
[2018] EWHC 3461 (QB)·2018·Liability decided at trial
A woman with learning difficulties lost her arm and leg to blood clots in 2012 after several doctors and a hospital failed to spot a blocked artery. Martin Spencer J found only Dr Jackson negligent and causative, and only for the arm, awarding the agreed £150,000.
Where several clinicians see a deteriorating patient, the court examines each contact separately. Compensation was limited to the injury that the negligent consultation could actually have prevented.
Claimant succeeded
[2025] EWHC 3056 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial
A 49-year-old man saw his GP with breathlessness and a persistent cough; the GP ordered a chest X-ray on the computer system but the judge found she never told him to go to the walk-in radiology department. The court held he would have attended if told and was not himself at fault.
Ordering a test is not enough; the patient must be told clearly what to do. Courts are slow to blame patients for not chasing a test they did not know had been requested.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 1214 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
A patient with a prosthetic aortic valve had abnormal inflammatory markers on blood tests in November 2010; his GP arranged a routine appointment rather than urgent hospital admission and he suffered a stroke from endocarditis in January 2011. The judge found the results did not ground a reasonable suspicion of endocarditis and the GP's response was one a reasonable body of GPs would take.
Abnormal blood results must be acted on, but the level of urgency required depends on what a reasonable GP would have suspected at the time; a routine review can be acceptable where the overall picture did not point to a serious diagnosis.
Claimant succeeded
[2019] EWHC 520 (QB)·2019·Liability decided at trial
Two days after a back injury, Mrs Shaw attended an out-of-hours GP with severe low back pain, numbness and tingling in both legs, difficulty walking and a urinary accident. The judge found these red-flag signs of cauda equina syndrome were present and were missed, so the GP should have sent her straight to hospital.
An out-of-hours GP who fails to pick up cauda equina red flags (bilateral leg symptoms, bladder problems, leg weakness) and does not refer to hospital falls below the standard of a reasonable GP. A doctor's belief that he would not have missed it carries little weight if the records do not support it.
Claimant succeeded
[2011] EWHC 13 (QB)·2011·Liability decided at trial
A fourteen-year-old with days of high fever, vomiting and lethargy was not admitted to hospital by her GP on the Saturday, and the out-of-hours doctor that night managed her by phone instead of visiting; by the time she reached A&E the next morning she deteriorated and suffered irreversible brain damage. The judge found both doctors liable but dismissed the claim against the hospital because it could not be proved when the damage occurred.
A GP who recognises a possible pneumonia in a seriously unwell child but defers investigation for two days, and an out-of-hours doctor who does not visit despite worrying symptoms, can both be held liable when earlier admission would have avoided the injury. A hospital's breach does not lead to liability unless the timing of the damage can be linked to it.
Claim failed
[2015] EWHC 276 (QB)·2015·Liability decided at trial
A four-year-old with fever, headache and vomiting was seen at an out-of-hours walk-in centre on New Year's Day and sent home with advice to return if he did not improve; the next evening he was admitted with meningitis and was left severely disabled. The judge held the GP's management was within the range of acceptable practice and dismissed the claim.
A feverish child sent home with safety-netting advice is not automatically a negligent consultation; the court asks whether a reasonable GP could have acted the same way. Hindsight about a devastating outcome does not prove breach of duty.
Claim failed
[2013] EWCA Civ 547·2013·Appeal decision
A six-week-old premature baby was seen at an out-of-hours clinic, diagnosed with colic and not referred to hospital; he developed bacterial meningitis and was left severely disabled. The trial judge accepted the GP's contemporaneous note over the mother's recollection of symptoms and found no negligence, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
Even where earlier hospital referral would have prevented the injury, the claim fails if the court accepts the GP's record of what the child looked like at the consultation. Contemporaneous clinical notes can outweigh a parent's later recollection.
Claim failed
[2006] EWCA Civ 1028·2006·Appeal decision
A five-year-old whose overnight glucose pump failed had a hypoglycaemic fit; the GP who came to the house gave suppositories rather than the intravenous glucose he was carrying, and the boy suffered fatal brain damage. The trial judge found the GP negligent but not that IV glucose would have saved him, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision and refused to admit new evidence.
Proving a doctor was negligent is not enough; the claimant must also prove that correct treatment would have changed the outcome. The court also held that an expert's undisclosed link to the defendant's medical defence organisation did not by itself make his evidence inadmissible.