Every one a published decision of the courts of England and Wales, linked to its source.
Claimant succeeded£68,742
[2017] EWHC 863 (QB)·2017·Damages assessed at trial
Swabs taken after childbirth showed chlamydia but neither the patient nor her GP was told, and it went untreated for about a year; she suffered repeated pain and an ectopic pregnancy requiring removal of a fallopian tube. The trust admitted breach; the court accepted the ectopic pregnancy and a period of pain disorder were caused by the negligence but rejected the claim that her later chronic widespread pain was.
Failing to pass on an abnormal test result is a clear breach, but the claimant still has to prove which later problems flowed from it. Long-term pain conditions are hard to attribute to a delayed diagnosis.
Claimant succeeded
[2017] EWHC 3147 (QB)·2017·Liability and damages decided at trial
After surgery at Charing Cross Hospital in 2001 the patient was never told his tumour was malignant or that he needed regular CT surveillance, and the cancer recurred undetected until 2010. The court found a continuing duty to inform him of his diagnosis and follow-up needs which the Trust failed to discharge.
Hospitals must tell patients the result of their treatment and the follow-up they need; failing to communicate a cancer diagnosis and the need for monitoring is negligent.
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.
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
[2023] EWHC 2719 (KB)·2023·Liability decided at trial
Two radiologists reporting a newborn's abdominal X-rays in October 2010 did not identify or report abnormal alignment of the hips that was visible on the films. The hip dysplasia was not diagnosed until 14 months later and the court found both radiologists in breach of duty.
Radiologists must report any obvious abnormality visible on an X-ray, even if it is outside the reason the scan was ordered. A missed incidental finding can found a negligence claim.
Claimant succeeded£1.84M
[2019] EWHC 1508 (QB)·2019·Appeal decision
A premature baby was sent home although a blood culture taken in hospital grew Group B strep; staff did not recall her and she developed meningitis with severe brain injury. The claim settled for a lump sum and annual payments; this reported judgment concerns a costs dispute, which the claimant lost.
Failing to act on a positive blood culture after discharge can lead to a multi-million-pound settlement. Note the published judgment is about costs, not the merits.
Claimant succeeded£2,000
[2010] EWHC 1888 (QB)·2010·Liability and damages decided at trial
A doctor at a same-day treatment centre in April 2005 examined a man with a cold, painful foot but her findings were recorded only on an X-ray request form and never passed to the GP, who then failed over several weeks to diagnose limb-threatening ischaemia. The court found negligence but held the leg could not have been saved, awarding only £2,000 for extra pain.
Examination findings must be communicated to the next clinician, not left on a request form. Even proven negligence yields little compensation if the outcome could not have been changed.
Claim failed
[2016] EWHC 251 (QB)·2016·Liability decided at trial
After surgery for a broken femur at St Richard's Hospital, Chichester, the patient was discharged in April 2008 without arrangements to repeat his inflammatory-marker blood tests, and a deep infection was diagnosed later. The court found this discharge and a four-day debridement delay were breaches of duty, but there was no evidence they made his condition materially worse, so the claim was dismissed.
Discharging a patient without arranging follow-up blood tests can be a breach of duty, but compensation depends on showing the delay actually worsened the outcome.
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.
Claim failed
[2006] EWHC 1238 (QB)·2006·Liability decided at trial
A baby born at 34 weeks developed severe jaundice; it was alleged doctors should have started an exchange transfusion sooner and that the laboratory should have phoned through a dangerously high bilirubin result. The judge found no breach in the doctors' decisions and, although the lab should have telephoned the result, concluded the damage could not have been prevented by then.
Neonatal jaundice claims depend on exactly when bilirubin reached a toxic level and whether earlier action could have prevented it. A proven communication failure still needs to be shown to have changed the outcome.