bolitho v city and hackney health authority 1997 ukhl 46

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority: UKHL 46 Case Analysis

By Brian ThomasApril 2, 2026

The case of Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority (1997 UKHL 46) is a landmark decision in UK medical negligence law, significantly impacting the standard of care expected from healthcare professionals. This article delves into the key aspects of this case, its impact, and its relevance today.

Background: The Bolitho Test

The case involved a claim by the Bolitho family against the City and Hackney Health Authority, following the death of their daughter, Lesley, from a rare blood disorder. The family alleged that the doctors had failed to diagnose and treat the condition appropriately.

The Bolitho Test: A New Standard of Care

The House of Lords, in its judgment, established a new test for determining whether a doctor had been negligent. This test, known as the Bolitho test, requires that a decision made by a doctor must be one that is reasonable, or at least not unreasonable, in the circumstances. This test shifted the focus from what a reasonable body of medical opinion would do, to whether the decision made was reasonable.

Stokely Carmichael, Oxford Mississippi, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Dr Martin Luther King, Civil Rights Leaders, Booker T, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr, Life Images

two soldiers hugging each other in front of an army vehicle with flags on the back

Key Elements of the Bolitho Test

Reasonableness: The decision must be reasonable in the circumstances. This includes considering the information available at the time, the patient's condition, and the resources available.
Not Unreasonable: Even if a different decision might have been made by another reasonable body of medical opinion, if the decision made was not unreasonable, it will not be considered negligent.

Impact of the Bolitho Test

The Bolitho test has had a significant impact on medical negligence cases. It has provided a more balanced approach to determining negligence, acknowledging the complexity and uncertainty inherent in medical decision-making. It has also encouraged a more patient-centered approach, with decisions being made based on the individual patient's circumstances.

Criticisms and Limitations

While the Bolitho test has been widely praised, it is not without its criticisms. Some argue that it has made it more difficult for claimants to succeed in medical negligence cases, as they must now prove that the decision made was unreasonable, rather than merely different from what another doctor might have done. Others suggest that it has introduced a degree of unpredictability into the law, as what is considered reasonable can vary depending on the circumstances.

an older man walking down the street with graffiti on it's wall behind him

an old black and white photo of a woman standing on the side of a road

black and white photograph of people standing in front of a building talking to each other

Relevance Today

The Bolitho test remains a cornerstone of UK medical negligence law, nearly a quarter of a century after the case was decided. It continues to be cited in cases involving complex medical decisions, and its principles are regularly applied in courts across the country. The test has also influenced the development of medical law in other jurisdictions, with its principles being adopted in countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

The case of Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority (1997 UKHL 46) is a testament to the dynamic nature of the law, and its ability to evolve and adapt in response to changing circumstances. The Bolitho test, while not without its criticisms, has played a significant role in shaping the standard of care expected from healthcare professionals, and its impact can still be felt today.