A few interesting medical cases from the last 6 months:-
- Negligence
- Court of Protection
- Inquests
- Regulatory
NEGLIGENCE – Shaheen & Anor v. Daish [2025] EWHC 3056 (KB)
The Court found that the GP defendant ‘…failed to tell/inform the deceased that a chest x-ray was required and that he needed to attend the local walk-in radiology department in order for the chest x-ray to be carried out’ where, despite evidence in person to the contrary, ‘There is no record in the appointment note of any discussion about the chest x-ray and it is not in Dr Daish’s plan’ and ‘…the defendant cannot show that… [the deceased] understood the significance of a failure to follow the advice…’
COURT OF PROTECTION – Stockport Met BC v. EKK [2025] EWCOP 42
Distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court in A Local Authority v. JB [2021] UKSC 52 as to capacity to engage in sexual relations, the Court finds: ‘The approach set out in Sheffield [City Council v. E [2004] EWHC 2808, pre MCA 2005] and developed thereafter enables the right balance between the protection of the incapacitous and a restriction on paternalistic involvement of the court. P needs to have capacity to understand what marriage is. If P does have that capacity it is not for the court to evaluate the person whom they wish to marry. To do so would be an overreach of the court’s role.’
INQUESTS – The Thompson Inquest [2025] UKSC 47
Where evidence was subject to a Public Interest Immunity certificate, ‘the assessment of the Minister and of the Secretary of State regarding the nature and extent of damage to national security should have been accepted by the Coroner unless there was no evidence to support that assessment or the assessment was Wednesbury irrational’ and prior to making any decision to disclose, the Coroner ‘should have obtained and considered the reasoned views of the Minister or the Secretary of State’.
NEGLIGENCE – Lewis-Ranwell v. G4S Health Services & Ors [2026]UKSC 2
The Supreme Court confirms that a claimant found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity should be barred from claiming compensation for the consequences of his unlawful killings, and from being indemnified in respect of his civil liability to his victims, by the defence of illegality – ‘the availability of the plea of illegality should not be fettered by the distinction drawn by the criminal law between diminished responsibility and insanity but should depend on a wider assessment of public policy considerations’.
REGULATORY – GMC v. Gilbert & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 53
Where ‘a judge has identified that there were factors which the MPT wrongly left out of account when they decided that suspension was a sufficient sanction’ it is not ‘incumbent upon him to explain why those factors did not move the appropriate sanction across the threshold from suspension to erasure’.
Magdalen Chambers has an experienced team of specialist barristers who can assist with all aspects of medical and personal injury law – please contact our clerks for information as to suitable counsel and estimates of their fees.