
Publication
Essential Corporate News – Week ending 11 July 2025
On 1 July 2025, the Quoted Companies Alliance (QCA) published three new board committee guides to accompany the QCA Environmental and Social Guide published in December 2024.
South Africa | Publication | January 2020
A UK court of appeal dismissed a claim for damages which arose as a result of a surgeon’s failure to warn a patient of the risks associated with undergoing a procedure to repair an abdominal hernia on the basis that the claimant would, nevertheless, have chosen to undergo the procedure.
The claimant was successful in establishing that the surgeon did not inform her of the risks of undergoing a repair to her hernia using a surgical mesh and, more specifically, that a repair to her hernia using the surgical mesh procedure could affect her future pregnancies. The claimant was single at the time but later began a relationship with a partner she wanted to have children with.
The judge held that even if the claimant was provided with the information relating to the alternative procedure, being a suture repair to her hernia, she would have, in any event, elected to undergo surgery for repair to her hernia using the surgical mesh procedure. The reason for this was that it was highly likely that suture repair to her hernia would fail and that the hernia would recur. The judge was of the view that the claimant, despite stating during evidence, that she would have chosen the suture repair option, was a rational person.
The court had to determine whether the surgeon’s failure to obtain informed consent from the claimant and the resulting breach of duty, gave rise to the damages claimed.
The surgeon admitted that he did not discuss with the claimant what the potential implications of a mesh repair were. Both parties’ experts were in agreement that the claimant should have been counselled about the potentially adverse effects of a surgical mesh during pregnancy. The surgeon claimed that the claimant did not indicate that there was a prospect of her falling pregnant following the procedure being performed, in which case he would have informed her of the risks associated with a mesh repair to her hernia.
The appeal court agreed with the following findings of the trial court
The claimant alleged that she suffered shock, distress and depression which were all “intimately connected” to the surgeon’s failure to obtain her properly informed consent.
The court of appeal stated that while the “but for” test is still applicable, it is also necessary for the claimant to show that the surgeon’s breach of duty was the cause of the injury suffered. The claimant was not successful in establishing that but for the breach, she would not have undergone the procedure to repair her hernia with a surgical mesh. The claimant furthermore did not present any evidence to the effect that she would have decided to postpone the procedure had she been informed of the risks involved.
“The judgment is Lucy Diamond v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust.”
Publication
On 1 July 2025, the Quoted Companies Alliance (QCA) published three new board committee guides to accompany the QCA Environmental and Social Guide published in December 2024.
Publication
In the two years since our last climate litigation update, the prevalence and variety of global climate litigation around the world has continued to increase.
Publication
Selon un rapport conjoint du Bureau du surintendant des institutions financières (BSIF) et de l’Agence de la consommation en matière financière du Canada (ACFC), environ 70 % des institutions financières fédérales prévoient utiliser l’IA d’ici 2026 .
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2025