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.
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.
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.