Every one a published decision of the courts of England and Wales, linked to its source. Six losses and four wins.
Claimant succeeded£459,758
[2015] EWCA Civ 1244·2015·Appeal decision
During surgery to repair a bladder-vagina fistula caused by an earlier hysterectomy, the surgeon damaged the femoral nerve while dissecting the sigmoid colon. The trial judge awarded £459,758 and the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the injury was caused by negligent direct injury rather than retractor pressure.
Where a nerve is damaged in an area the surgeon was working on, a court may infer negligence from the mechanism of injury and the expert evidence. Appeal courts rarely overturn a trial judge's factual findings on how an injury occurred.
Claimant succeeded£92,391
[2013] EWCA Civ 117·2013·Appeal decision
Mrs Thomas's bile duct was injured during keyhole gallbladder removal and the surgeon also failed to arrange fluid and kidney monitoring when she was readmitted unwell. The trial judge found both failures negligent and awarded £92,391; the Court of Appeal dismissed the surgeon's appeal.
Bile duct injury during gallbladder surgery is not automatically negligent, but a court can find negligence where the anatomy was recognised and the injury still occurred, and separately for inadequate monitoring afterwards.
Claimant succeeded
[2024] EWHC 3156 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial
A young woman with cerebral palsy had a PEG feeding tube inserted and was found unresponsive two days later with peritonitis and sepsis. The judge rejected the doctor's account of how the tube was fixed, found it was placed under too much tension, and entered judgment for the claimant.
Where a clinician's recollection is unreliable and contradicted by the physical evidence, the court can find a procedure was done negligently. Causation may still be limited where a pre-existing condition would have deteriorated anyway.
Settlement approved£2.5M
[2023] EWHC 2975 (KB)·2023·Settlement approved by the court
A 37-year-old mother suffered a cardiac arrest because intravenous fluids were not given during spinal anaesthesia just after her daughter's birth, leaving her with a brain injury; the hospital admitted liability. The court used its inherent jurisdiction to approve a settlement worth roughly £5.56m including periodical payments.
Anaesthetic errors around delivery can found a maternal negligence claim even when the baby is unharmed. Courts can approve settlements for adults with cognitive impairment even where they have not formally been found to lack capacity.
Claim failed
[2012] EWHC 2335 (QB)·2012·Liability decided at trial
Mrs Clements alleged that during bowel cancer surgery the surgeons twisted the bowel's mesentery before rejoining it and failed to check, causing obstruction, a second operation and catastrophic complications. The judge found the join was properly formed and the later obstruction was caused by adhesions, so there was no negligence.
Serious complications after surgery do not by themselves prove the operation was done negligently. The court will weigh the operating surgeons' evidence against what was found at the second operation.
Claim failed
[2023] EWHC 2803 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
Mr Ward's stomach was perforated during keyhole removal of a gastric band; the hole was not seen during the operation and was repaired the following morning after he deteriorated. The judge found the perforation was not visible at the time and so there was no negligent failure to identify and repair it.
A perforation missed during surgery is only negligent if there was visible evidence the surgeon should have seen. Post-operative pain that leads to timely re-operation may not give rise to a claim.
Claim failed
[2023] EWHC 1304 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
During surgery for a giant calcified thoracic disc the surgeon changed from the planned approach to opening the dura, and the patient was left partially paralysed. The judge found the change of approach and the surgical technique were supported by a responsible body of neurosurgical opinion and dismissed the claim.
Changing surgical plan mid-operation is not negligent where the alternative is a recognised, logical approach. Catastrophic outcomes from high-risk spinal surgery do not by themselves establish a breach of duty.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 1729 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
After a radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer the patient developed an abscess and a narrowed ureter, and later lost a kidney; she alleged the bowel was perforated at surgery and that urologists should have been involved in a second operation. The judge preferred the hospital's explanation for the infection and found no negligence in either operation.
Ureteric and kidney damage after pelvic surgery is not automatically negligent; the court will examine the most likely mechanism. Expert evidence on the cause of infection is often decisive.
Claim failed
[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
[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.