This article considers the potentially untapped significance of the Bolitho test, while the Bolam test looks to be facing a challenging twilight. It re-examines the landmark House of Lords case of Nadyne Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, having regard for Bolam as modified by Bolitho. Although further jurisprudential Bolam challenge is likely in the wake of the Montgomery ruling, there are grounds for re-examining Bolitho, on its own merits.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582.
2.
In Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [1997] 3 WLR 1151.
3.
ButtigiegGG. Medical malpractice, defective product/technology and their rules of engagement – is it time to re-think?J Forensic Biomed2017; 8: 134.
4.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, UK Supreme Court [2015] UKSC 11.
5.
BadenochJ. A doctor’s duty of disclosure and the decline of ‘The Bolam Test’: a dramatic change in the law on patient consent. Med Leg J2016; 84: 5–17.
6.
Nadyne Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Authority [2013] CSIH 3; 2013 SC 245.
7.
Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority (1983) 1 BMLR 122 at 127, [1984] 1 WLR 634 at 639.
8.
Fairchild (suing on her own behalf) etc. v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others etc. ([1972] 3 All ER 1008 at 1010, [1973] 1 WLR 1 at 3–4).
