Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41

Written By Nicolas Heyes

House of Lords

Basic Facts: The claimant, C, who suffered from chronic back pain, consulted D, a neurosurgeon. D advised surgery but failed to warn C of a very small risk (0.5%) of complications. The risk materialized, leaving C with pain and disability. C sued D in negligence for failing to warn her of the risk.

Issue for the Court: Can the "but for" causation test be relaxed, and if so, why?

Held by the House of Lords:

  • The House of Lords upheld C’s claim, albeit for different reasons than the Court of Appeal.

    • For policy reasons, the traditional rules of causation were relaxed to allow C to succeed.

    • The need to protect a patient's right to make an informed decision about medical treatment was paramount.

    • It would be unjust to deny a remedy when a doctor’s breach of duty led to the patient suffering a risk that was not disclosed.

Nicolas Heyes
Previous

Clunis v Camden and Islington HA [1998] 3 All ER 180
Next

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland RTB [1942] AC 509