LXLP v St George's: Clinical Guidance and Causation in Medical Negligence

*LXLP: The role of clinical guidance and whether ‘risk reduction’ is sufficient to prove causation*

Marcus Coates-Walker

LXLP v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 560 (KB)

Summary

In what context should breach of duty be assessed where national medical guidance is inconsistent with the Defendant’s local hospital protocol? How do epidemiological studies that underpin publications by Cochrane, RCOG and NICE inform causation where they show that earlier or different intervention improves outcomes?

The decision in LXLP v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 560 (KB) highlights the importance of critically examining expert evidence in clinical negligence cases and being careful not to treat literature or medical guidance as determinative of legal tests.

The Facts

A claim was brought on behalf of LXLP for damages arising from the Defendant’s negligence in April / May 2016, which it was argued resulted in bilateral four-limb cerebral palsy.

In summary:

• LXLP was born at 18:05 on 10 May 2016. After an uneventful early pregnancy, LXLP’s mother attended hospital on 25 April 2016 (27+5 weeks gestation). She reported leaking clear fluid. It was agreed that there was pre-term, pre-labour rupture of membranes (PPROM) and that chorioamnionitis developed during the 12 to 24 hours before LXLP’s presentation on 10 May. This resulted in an ascending maternal amniotic infection which triggered pre-term labour, funisitis, a foetal inflammatory response which in turn led to periventricular leukomalacia (PVL).
• Breach of duty concerned missed opportunities to administer antibiotics prior to LXLP’s delivery. It was admitted that Erythromycin should have been administered in line with national guidance. However, it was denied that a failure to also administer penicillin (due to the presence of Group B Streptococcus (GBS), which is known to be resistant to Erythromycin) fell below a reasonable standard of care.
• In terms of penicillin, the Court was required to grapple with a conflict between national guidance and the Defendant’s local hospital guidance. It was clear in the RCOG Green-top Guidelines No. 36 and 44 that antibiotic administration specifically for GBS colonisation was not necessary where membranes have ruptured preterm / prior to labour and should not be given ‘just in case’. However, in the Defendant’s local guidance (which, interestingly, was drafted by the Consultant who cared for LXLP’s mother), it stipulated that penicillin should be offered to eradicate GBS.

• The Judge found to act in accordance with national guidance and not to follow the hospital’s own local guidance was not a breach of duty: This does not mean that the local Hospital guideline is wrong, nor does it mean that if the local were to be followed in preference to the national in another case, with some adverse effect, that would be a breach of duty. Each guideline is there with the intention of providing the medical professional with a well-informed starting point for managing the particular circumstances which they encounter, for the particular patient.
  The Claimant’s case on causation can be summarised as follows:

• As a result of the Defendant’s failure to administer prophylactic antibiotics following a diagnosis of PPROM, LXLP’s mother developed chorioamnionitis 12-14 hours prior to delivery at 18:05 on 10 May 2016.

• Chorioamnionitis caused LXLP to succumb to a foetal inflammatory response which caused her severe brain damage (PVL) and has given rise to a biplegic cerebral palsy.

• Had the Defendant administered: (i) Erythromycin alone; or (in the alternative) (ii) Erythromycin and Penicillin in combination, labour would have been prolonged so as to avoid chorioamnionitis or reduce its severity in a material way (particularly as to the foetal inflammatory response).
  The Decision

To what extent do national guidance documents inform causation: The judge accepted that Cochrane, RCOG and NICE had undertaken careful and expert review of the evidence base. These materials amounted to a broad and consistent consensus that Erythromycin improves outcomes where there is PPROM. However, the judge found that none of that material supports a proposition that Erythromycin prevents chorioamnionitis. Rather, the judge found that Erythromycin has a sufficient range of beneficial effects in a sufficient proportion of cases, with sufficient evidence of a lack of adverse effects, to warrant its use to assist in managing PPROM. The national guidance documents cannot provide evidence for, nor establish, a position which goes beyond the evidence base which underpins them. In this case, it would be a fallacy to equate a recommendation in national guidance with causation. It was held that there is no body of evidence which establishes that Erythromycin assists with latency such that it extends pregnancy beyond about a week. Erythromycin alone would not, on the balance of probability, have delayed the onset of labour in the Claimant’s case beyond a week and that delay alone would not have avoided the cytokine response and the resultant PVL.

The range of potential causes of infection and inflammation: The microbiological experts agreed that the microbiome is variable as between patients, each with its own complex bacterial composition. This was demonstrated by the following points:

• The Cochrane review shows risk reduction but not prevention of chorioamnionitis.
• Only some bacteria would be controlled by antibiotics, and others would adjust their number accordingly.
• Which bacteria cause chorioamnionitis is not known, though GBS are significant.
• The routes via which bacteria might invade foetal membranes are numerous.
• The vaginal microbiome is variable between individuals. There are numerous potential and credible causes of the chorioamnionitis. By the end of the microbiologist’s evidence, the judge found that they were unable to say Erythromycin would be likely to eliminate potential and credible causes in the Claimant’s particular case such that chorioamnionitis would not occur anyway. At its highest, the Claimant’s evidence effectively amounted to ‘risk reduction’ rather than a clear position as to why antibiotics would probably have made a difference to the outcome for this particular individual.

Material contribution: Given the judge found for the Defendant on the balance of probabilities, an analysis of material contribution was not required. However, the judge addressed it to some extent in any event. First, he found that the Claimant’s case was the opposite of indivisible disease, given that the Claimant argued the severity of the injury would be reduced if the bacterial load was reduced. Second, whilst prolongation of pregnancy is associated with improved outcomes, those improved outcomes cover a broad spectrum. The judge found that is not possible to equate a general conclusion of improved outcomes, with its many potential meanings, to a reduction in severity of PVL and brain injury. The evidence did not sufficiently support that specific conclusion.

The Defendant was represented by Jeremy Hyam KC at 1 Crown Office Row. He was not involved in the writing of this article.

Share via:

-

-

Breach of duty Causation Expert evidence material contribution

Last updated on April 22, 2026