AB & Ors v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust

AB & Ors v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust

English law does not recognise a tort of wrongful interference with a body where organs are lawfully removed and retained following consent or coroner's authority; hospitals and doctors owe a duty of care to parents when obtaining consent for post-mortem, requiring explanation of organ retention; breach of duty found where doctors failed to inform parents, but psychiatric injury must be foreseeable; only Mrs Shorter's claim for negligence succeeds as her psychiatric injury was foreseeable; claims for exemplary and aggravated damages fail.

Parties
Claimant: A B and Others; First Defendant: Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust; Second Defendant: Cardiff and Vale HNS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation / Judgment
Outcome
Claims of Mr and Mrs Harris and Mrs Carpenter dismissed; Mrs Shorter's claim succeeds.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Interference With a Body, Negligence, Psychiatric Injury, Consent to Post Mortem, Human Tissue Act 1961, Duty of Care, Primary/secondary Victim Dichotomy, Exemplary and Aggravated Damages
Tort Medical Law Human Rights Wrongful Interference With a Body Negligence Psychiatric Injury Consent to Post Mortem Human Tissue Act 1961 +3 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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A B and Others

Claimant

Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust

First Defendant

Cardiff and Vale HNS Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English law recognises a tort of wrongful interference with a body
  2. 2 Whether hospitals and doctors owed a duty of care to parents when obtaining consent for post-mortem
  3. 3 Whether breach of duty caused foreseeable psychiatric injury

Ratio Decidendi

English law does not recognise a tort of wrongful interference with a body where organs are lawfully removed and retained following consent or coroner's authority; hospitals and doctors owe a duty of care to parents when obtaining consent for post-mortem, requiring explanation of organ retention; breach of duty found where doctors failed to inform parents, but psychiatric injury must be foreseeable; only Mrs Shorter's claim for negligence succeeds as her psychiatric injury was foreseeable; claims for exemplary and aggravated damages fail.

Court Disposition

Claims of Mr and Mrs Harris and Mrs Carpenter dismissed; Mrs Shorter's claim succeeds.

Orders

  • Judgment for defendants in Harris and Carpenter claims.
  • Judgment for Mrs Shorter for £2,750 general damages plus agreed special damages and interest.