Materiality is still material (Butler v Ward)
PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The court refused a summary judgment application by the defendant, which sought judgment on the basis that a claim for breach of duty to warn a clinical patient of risks could be decided in reference to a reasonable body of medical opinion without a need to consider evidence from (inter alia) the claimant. The court held that evidence from the claimant was necessary to determine whether the risk in question was material, and that the rule in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board in respect of consent to medical risks had not been altered by the judgment in McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board. In particular, the Bolam test did not apply to the duty to warn a patient of material risks, even if it would apply to the duty to advise a patient as to alternative procedures. The court also struck out a sections of a schedule of loss which claimed substantial sums, in the region of £2.5m for loss of earnings, but which disclosed no basis for claiming damages in that amount. Written by Thomas Mallon, barrister at Henderson Chambers.