CNZ v Royal Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Anor [2023] EWHC 19 (KB) (11 January 2023)

CNZ v Royal Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Anor [2023] EWHC 19 (KB) (11 January 2023)

The court found that the defendants did not breach their duty to offer or discuss elective caesarean section antenatally, as it was not a reasonable alternative treatment in 1996 given the claimant's mother's clinical circumstances and prevailing medical standards. The court found that the defendants responded appropriately to requests for caesarean section during labour and that the timing of the caesarean section was within the range of reasonable medical practice. The court accepted that the injury was divisible and that only a portion of the claimant's injury was attributable to any proven delay.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 19 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: CNZ (suing by her father and litigation friend MNZ); 1st Defendant: Royal Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; 2nd Defendant: The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence / High Court Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Standard of Care, Causation, Clinical Negligence, Obstetrics, Antenatal Care, Delay in Treatment
Medical Negligence Tort Law Informed Consent Standard of Care Causation Clinical Negligence Obstetrics Antenatal Care +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CNZ (suing by her father and litigation friend MNZ)

Claimant

Royal Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

1st Defendant

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence / High Court Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants failed to offer or discuss caesarean section as a reasonable alternative treatment during antenatal care
  2. 2 Whether the defendants failed to respond appropriately to requests for caesarean section during labour
  3. 3 Whether there was negligent delay in performing caesarean section resulting in injury to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants did not breach their duty to offer or discuss elective caesarean section antenatally, as it was not a reasonable alternative treatment in 1996 given the claimant's mother's clinical circumstances and prevailing medical standards. The court found that the defendants responded appropriately to requests for caesarean section during labour and that the timing of the caesarean section was within the range of reasonable medical practice. The court accepted that the injury was divisible and that only a portion of the claimant's injury was attributable to any proven delay.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed