In this blog post, Megan Griffiths summarises and analyses the High Court’s recent decision in Bell v Tavistock NHS Trust. This judicial review decision looks at informed consent practices for children and young people with gender dysphoria, whether they can achieve Gillick competence for consenting to puberty blocking treatment, and what such consent processes would require in practice. This decision is likely to impact on guidance specific to gender dysphoria, but the findings on the types of information required for informed consent in young people are also likely to be relevant to other areas of clinical practice.
Reflections on the Cumberlege Committee Report from a Clinical Negligence Perspective by Henry Charles and Vanessa Cashman
In this post, 12KBW pupil Samuel Cuthbert considers the ramifications of the case of Bradfield-Kay v Cope  EWHC 1352 (QB) for the tests set out in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee  1 WLR 583 and Bolitho v City and Hackney HA  AC 232.
In this post, Isaac Hogarth summarises the recent case of SC v University Hospital Southampton NHS FT  EWHC 1610 (QB), which involved a failure to diagnose pneumococcal meningitis.
William Audland QC and Isaac Hogarth of 12 King’s Bench Walk, instructed by Stewart Young of Stewarts successfully represented the claimant (“C”) in his claim against Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (“D”), achieving a settlement of £4.3 million at a video mediation. The claim arose from a delay in treating raised intracranial pressure secondary to … Continue reading William Audland QC and Isaac Hogarth of 12KBW achieve online mediated settlement of catastrophic blindness claim secondary to raised intra-cranial pressure
In this blog post, Helen Waller of 12KBW discusses the case of NKX (By his mother and litigation friend NMK) -v- Barts Health NHS Trust  EWHC 828 (QB), which involved a birth injury due to clinical negligence. Although it is a case largely based on its own facts, it is nonetheless an example of careful judicial analysis of complex and detailed expert evidence. It demonstrates the importance of the parties and the court having a full understanding of the medical issues in order to properly address both breach and causation.
In this post, Henry King of 12KBW examines the limited application of so-called “pure diagnosis” cases in the context of a case where failure to diagnose a patient's abdominal mass as an actinomycosis infection was found to be non-negligent on traditional Bolam / Bolitho principles.
In this post Helen Waller of 12KBW discusses Mrs Justice Yip’s dismissal of a claim that sought to establish that a doctor owed a duty of care to disclose a patient’s hereditary disease to his child. An earlier appeal of a strike out application in this tragic case has already been reported on by Rachit … Continue reading ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors  EWHC 455 (QB) Does a doctor owe a duty of care to disclose a hereditary disease to a patient’s child?
In this post, Christopher Fleming of 12KBW discusses the recent decision in Metcalf v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC 3549 (QB). The case concerned a hypothetical situation that would have existed had the Claimant been referred for necessary investigations sooner. The test to be applied was set out by Lord Browne-Wilkinson … Continue reading Causation in hypothetical scenarios: the interplay between Bolitho, Bolam & Montgomery