Craig Purshouse on The Montgomery mistake (New Book Chapter)

"The Montgomery mistake"
Craig Purshouse
in José Miola (ed) and Louise Austin (ed), Research Handbook on Medical Consent, (Edward Elgar Publishing, April 2026), Chapter 6, pp. 98 - 111
Published in April 2026

Introduction: Until very recently, the arc of the law of negligent information non-disclosure appeared to be bending towards ever-greater protection of patient autonomy. The high point of this vision was the 2015 UK Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. Mrs Nadine Montgomery was a pregnant diabetic woman who was not warned of a 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia, a medical emergency where the baby’s shoulder become trapped behind the mother’s pelvis, associated with a vaginal delivery. Shoulder dystocia carries with it a much smaller risk of serious complications and, unfortunately, both risks eventuated during her labour and so she brought a claim on behalf of her son for the injuries he had sustained. In their joint leading judgement, Lord Kerr and Lord Reed held that a doctor is 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 was said to be ‘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, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attached significance to it’. The much-maligned House of Lords decision in Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital – where the majority had supported the Bolam test, with its focus on whether a professional’s actions complied with responsible peer opinion – was dead.

Ambiguities in Montgomery about what makes an alternative or variant treatment ‘reasonable’ have recently been the subject of another UK Supreme Court decision. McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board was a claim brought by the window and family members of Mr Neil McCulloch, who had died of a heart attack at home after being discharged from hospital with potential acute pericarditis. His family argued that he should have been offered a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), such as ibuprofen, by the defendants. The claim…...

Craig Purshouse et al on Liability For Rugby Related Neuro-Degenerative Disease: A Question of Tort (JPIL)

"Liability For Rugby Related Neuro-Degenerative Disease: A Question of Tort"
Emma Cave, Craig Purshouse, and Joe Purshouse
The Journal of Personal Injury Law, 2, pp. 93-112
Published online: May 2024

Abstract: This article examines the potential liability of rugby governing bodies in negligence for their alleged past failures to protect players from known risks associated with the neurodegenerative consequences of rugby-related traumatic brain injury. Not only is there a strong public interest in the claims given the impact it could have on the game, but the claims raise novel issues in tort law and legal medicine. We consider the action in negligence in light of recent developments such as scientific advances in relation to both causes and diagnoses of neurodegenerative disease, criticism of the industry from independent committees, and increased readiness of the courts to hold sporting bodies to account. The article sets out the barriers a claimant would face and the doctrinal advances that would be required to overcome them. While other writers have been sceptical of the chances of claimant success, the argument put forward in this article is that barriers to a claim are not insurmountable, provided the claim is carefully articulated taking account of both doctrine and the developing evidence base.

HKU Law Welcomes Prof. Craig Purshouse

Welcome to Prof. Craig Purshouse, who joins the Faculty of Law as an Associate Professor. Craig is also a Research Fellow in the Centre for Medical Ethics and Law at the University of Hong Kong. Before joining HKU, he was a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Liverpool and, before that held lectureships at Liverpool and the University of Leeds.

Craig’s research interests are in the law of torts and medical law, with a particular focus on the area where they overlap: medical negligence. He has published widely on his research interests in a range of leading generalist and specialist law journals, as well as editing and contributing to edited collections of essays.

Craig’s research has been cited by the UK Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal of Singapore, the High Court of England and Wales, the English and Scottish Law Commissions and in the UK Parliament. While at Liverpool, Craig was the joint editor-in-chief of the journal Medical Law International and remains a member of the editorial board. He was also previously on the editorial board of the Medical Law Review.

Craig completed his LLB in Law at the University of Sheffield and his MA and PhD at the University of Manchester.