Ollosson v Lee [2019] EWHC 784 (QB) (29 March 2019)

Ollosson v Lee [2019] EWHC 784 (QB) (29 March 2019)

The defendant failed to provide the claimant with adequate information about the risk of chronic testicular pain, including its potential severity and impact on quality of life, as required by the standard in Montgomery. The information provided in the booklet and consent form was insufficiently clear and did not adequately communicate the material risk. The court accepted the claimant's evidence that, had he been properly informed of the risk, he would not have proceeded with the vasectomy. Therefore, the defendant breached the duty of care and causation was established.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 784
Parties
Claimant: Mr Marc Ollosson; Defendant: Doctor Alan Lee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Claim / Liability Only Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant on liability
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Medical Duty of Care, Causation, Patient Information Disclosure
Medical Negligence Tort Law Informed Consent Medical Duty of Care Causation Patient Information Disclosure

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Marc Ollosson

Claimant

Doctor Alan Lee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Claim / Liability Only Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant failed to provide adequate information about the risk of chronic testicular pain prior to vasectomy
  2. 2 Whether the claimant gave properly informed consent to the procedure
  3. 3 Whether any breach of duty caused the claimant to undergo the vasectomy

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to provide the claimant with adequate information about the risk of chronic testicular pain, including its potential severity and impact on quality of life, as required by the standard in Montgomery. The information provided in the booklet and consent form was insufficiently clear and did not adequately communicate the material risk. The court accepted the claimant's evidence that, had he been properly informed of the risk, he would not have proceeded with the vasectomy. Therefore, the defendant breached the duty of care and causation was established.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant on liability

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant breached the duty of care in failing to provide adequate information about the risk of chronic testicular pain prior to vasectomy
  • Matter to proceed to assessment of damages