A B and others v Tameside and Glossop Health Authority and Trafford Health Authority: CA 13 Nov 1996

The choice of the telephone as a means of alerting and re-assuring people, who had received treatment from a health worker later found to be HIV+, was proper. The was no breach of a duty care, even though some people called had suffered distress: ‘once the defendants had decided to inform their patients at all, they were under a duty to take such steps to inform them as were reasonable, having regard both to the foreseeable risk that some of them might suffer psychiatric injury (or any existing psychiatric injury might be materially aggravated) upon receipt of the information ‘ and ‘the judge has to perform the familiar role of considering the factual evidence carefully, listening to the expert evidence, and forming a view as to whether in all the circumstances these public health authorities fell below the standards reasonably to be expected of them when they selected their preferred method of communicating the information to the patients.’


Brooke LJ


Gazette 04-Dec-1996, Times 27-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 938, [1996] 35 BMRLR 39




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust QBD 26-Mar-2004
Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140805