News
1 May, 2026
Una Doherty K.C. – decree of absolvitor in AM v Lothian Health Board [2026] CSOH 42
Una Doherty K.C. acted for the successful defender Lothian Health Board, along with Ewen Campbell, Advocate, in this action in which Lady Hood granted decree of absolvitor on 30 April 2026. The pursuer was represented by Astrid Smart K.C. and David Swanney, Advocate.
The action related to alleged negligence by midwifery staff and obstetricians at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, in their care of the pursuer during her labour in September 2010. The pursuer claimed that the alleged negligence caused her son’s severe brain injury. In September 2024, the court agreed to the defender’s motion to allow a PBA restricted to the issue of breach of duty, with there to be a further PBA on causation and quantum if required.
At the proof, evidence was heard over eleven days, followed by an oral submissions hearing with written submissions in advance. Oral evidence was led from eight factual witnesses and four expert witnesses. There were three alleged breaches of duty against midwifery staff and a total of five alleged breaches of duty against two obstetricians. The pursuer sought to amend during the proof to introduce further duties said to have been breached – this motion to amend was successfully opposed.
In relation to the case against midwifery staff, Lady Hood did not accept the evidence by the pursuer and her partner as to when they first alerted staff to the presence of meconium. Lady Hood did not accept the pursuer’s expert midwifery evidence that it was required midwifery practice to assess all patients including the pursuer within 15 minutes of arrival in triage, or that there was a duty to assess this pursuer significantly earlier.
In relation to the case against the obstetricians, the interpretation of the cardiotocograph was critical. Two disputed issues were relevant to this interpretation: the concept of shallow late decelerations, and the proper approach to the interpretation of the NICE Intrapartum Care Clinical Guideline 55 (2007), Table 6, in relation to the frequency of late decelerations required to be an abnormal feature. Given the competing obstetric expert evidence, Lady Hood required to apply the Bolitho test, and concluded that there was no basis to reject the defender’s expert obstetric evidence, and the five alleged duties against the obstetricians did not arise.
The opinion of Lady Hood can be viewed here.