Ollosson v Lee

Ollosson v Lee

The defendant adequately informed the claimant of the risk of chronic pain, including its possible severity and impact on lifestyle, using language appropriate for lay understanding. The risk was described as 'small', which is sufficient for informed consent. The claimant's recollection is imperfect and does not undermine the adequacy of the information provided. No breach of duty occurred.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Marc Ollosson; Defendant: Doctor Alan Lee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Liability Only Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Duty of Care, Medical Disclosure, Causation
Medical Negligence Tort Informed Consent Duty of Care Medical Disclosure Causation

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Marc Ollosson

Claimant

Doctor Alan Lee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Liability Only Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant provided adequate information about the risk of chronic pain for informed consent
  2. 2 Whether the claimant would have proceeded with the vasectomy if properly informed
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached the duty of care in counselling about risks

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant adequately informed the claimant of the risk of chronic pain, including its possible severity and impact on lifestyle, using language appropriate for lay understanding. The risk was described as 'small', which is sufficient for informed consent. The claimant's recollection is imperfect and does not undermine the adequacy of the information provided. No breach of duty occurred.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed