A Premature Ode to Bolam post Montgomery

Below we bring you an article written by Jonathan Godfrey, published in the October-December issue of the Barrister magazine. The article looks at a clinical negligence issue.

With the advent of the “materiality” test in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [ 2015 ] UKSC 11, it was presumed by many that Bolam was consigned to the long grass in informed consent cases. A Health care professional was now “under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments”. The test of materiality “ is whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk ……….”. Was the assumption premature?

The remainder of the article can be found here

Jonathan is an accredited advocacy trainer for the North Eastern Circuit and the Inner Temple. He is a visiting lecturer at the University of Law, based in Leeds. If you would like to instruct Jonathan or any of the Civil team please contact one of the clerks.