Chester v Afshar

Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 is an important English tort law case regarding causation in a medical negligence context.Miss Chester was referred to Dr Afshar, a neurological expert, about some lower back pain.It is a basic principle of good medical practice that adults should consent on a fully informed basis to surgery, aware of all risks.Lord Steyn argued that such a right "must be given effective protection whenever possible", warranting a "modest departure from traditional causation principles", emphasising his view by quoting Ronald Dworkin: The value of autonomy, on this view, derives from the capacity it protects: the capacity to express one's own character - values, commitments, convictions, and critical as well as experiential interests - in the life one leads.[2]Lord Bingham felt that even though Dr Afshar had been found not to have informed Miss Chester about the 1–2% risk of surgery failure, this did not mean that causation had been shown.
House of LordsCourt of AppealLord BinghamLord SteynLord HoffmannLord HopeLord WalkerCausation (law)Medical negligenceTort lawEnglish tort lawcausationinformed consentcauda equina syndromeHale LJChristopher SladeDenis Henry"but for" testfully informedRonald DworkinFairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services LtdLord Bingham of CornhillNegligenceMontgomery v Lanarkshire Health BoardEnglish lawUK ConstitutionAdministrative lawCriminal lawContract lawPrivacyProperty lawTrust lawRetained EU lawCompany lawCompetition lawLabour lawCommercial lawCivil procedureFamily lawCourts of England and WalesUK-wideNorthern IrelandScotlandAustraliaBritish Virgin IslandsCanadaHong KongNew ZealandSingaporeUnited StatesAnglo-Saxon lawCommon lawEquityBloody CodeHue and cry