As the Court of Appeal widens the application of the Montgomery consent test, Philippa Luscombe explores the implications for claimants
- In Webster the Court of Appeal widened the application for informed consent.
- The ruling could have a significant impact from a resource perspective.
The Court of Appeal has widened the application of the test for informed consent, ruling that in all cases patients must be consulted and advised about their proposed treatment, options, risks and benefits—even if the care is a “do nothing” approach.
In Webster (a child and protected party, by his mother and Litigation Friend, Butler) v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 62 the court allowed an appeal of the claimant against the previous finding in favour of the defendant hospital on causation of the claimant’s birth injuries.
The court found that the judge had based his judgment as to whether there had been negligence on the approach set out in Bolam v Frien Hospital [1957] 2 All ER 118 by looking at whether the consultant had acted in accordance with a responsible body of expert medical opinion. However, this
