CNZ v Royal Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Anor

CNZ v Royal Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Anor

The defendants were negligent in failing to provide timely caesarean section after the birth of the first twin, failing to inform and act on the parents' choice for caesarean, and causing a delay of approximately 6.5 minutes, which on the balance of probabilities caused all of the claimant's brain injury. The consent process antenatally was not negligent. Apportionment of damages is not appropriate as it is scientifically impossible to attribute functional outcome to specific minutes of hypoxic ischaemia; thus, the claimant is entitled to 100% of damages.

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 Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for clinical negligence against the 1st Defendant succeeds; claim against the 2nd Defendant fails.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Causation, Material Contribution, Clinical Negligence, Standard of Care, Delay in Treatment, Montgomery Principles, Apportionment of Damages
Medical Negligence Tort Law Informed Consent Causation Material Contribution Clinical Negligence Standard of Care Delay in Treatment +2 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 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 Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were negligent in failing to offer or perform a caesarean section in a timely manner; whether the claimant's mother was properly informed of reasonable alternative treatments; whether the delay in delivery caused or materially contributed to the claimant's brain injury; whether damages should be apportioned based on the duration of negligent versus non-negligent hypoxic ischaemia.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were negligent in failing to provide timely caesarean section after the birth of the first twin, failing to inform and act on the parents' choice for caesarean, and causing a delay of approximately 6.5 minutes, which on the balance of probabilities caused all of the claimant's brain injury. The consent process antenatally was not negligent. Apportionment of damages is not appropriate as it is scientifically impossible to attribute functional outcome to specific minutes of hypoxic ischaemia; thus, the claimant is entitled to 100% of damages.

Court Disposition

Claim for clinical negligence against the 1st Defendant succeeds; claim against the 2nd Defendant fails.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against the 1st Defendant for 100% of damages to be assessed; claim against the 2nd Defendant dismissed.