Chatterton v Gerson [1981] QB 432 (CA)

Facts

  • Mrs. Chatterton underwent surgery to relieve chronic pain caused by a hernia; the procedure involved severing nerves (neuroctomy).
  • Following the surgery, Mrs. Chatterton experienced permanent numbness and loss of sensation in the affected area.
  • She alleged she had not been adequately informed about the risk of permanent numbness and argued that her consent to the procedure was invalid due to a lack of informed understanding.
  • The action focused on whether the information provided prior to the procedure sufficed to constitute valid consent under law.

Issues

  1. Whether a patient’s consent to medical treatment is valid when they lack full information about all the risks of the procedure.
  2. Whether the absence of specific disclosure regarding certain risks renders the consent invalid, potentially giving rise to liability in battery or negligence.
  3. Whether claims regarding inadequate disclosure of risks in medical treatment should be framed as battery or negligence.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that Mrs. Chatterton’s consent was valid, despite her claim of inadequate disclosure about all possible risks.
  • The court found she was informed about the nature and purpose of the surgical procedure, and the level of information provided matched what a reasonable medical practitioner would disclose.
  • The absence of detailed information about every possible risk did not, in itself, invalidate her consent.
  • The court clarified that failures in disclosure typically constitute negligence, not battery, where the patient understands the nature and purpose of the procedure.

Legal Principles

  • Valid consent in medical treatment requires the patient to have a voluntary and informed understanding of the nature and purpose of the procedure, as well as its material risks.
  • Consent is not vitiated simply because the patient was not informed of every possible risk; material risks must be disclosed in accordance with the standards of a responsible body of medical opinion.
  • Claims based on inadequate disclosure of risks are to be pleaded in negligence (subject to breach of duty and causation), not as battery, unless the patient was misled or coerced.
  • The approach balances the requirement for informed decision-making with the practical realities of medical communication and patient comprehension.

Conclusion

Chatterton v Gerson established that a patient's consent to medical treatment is valid if they are informed of the procedure’s nature and purpose, and that inadequate disclosure of specific risks generally gives rise to a claim in negligence rather than battery, cementing the importance of informed patient understanding in English medical law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal