Gregg v Scott [2005] 2 WLR 268
Regarding ‘loss of a chance’ claims, where the claimant contends the defendant’s negligence prevented the opportunity of avoiding recovery from injury.
Facts
The claimant, Gregg, noticed an unusual lump under his arm and subsequently sought a medical opinion regarding it. His doctor incorrectly and negligently diagnosed the lump as benign. In fact, the lump was a malignant cancer which was not discovered for a further nine months, resulting in a sizable delay in when the claimant begun receiving the correct treatment for the lump. In this nine months the claimant’s medical condition had significantly worsened and the lump grown considerably. Expert medical testimony suggested that had the lump been correctly diagnosed at the claimant’s original appointment, he would have had an approximately 42% chance of survival; however, by the time at which his lump was actually correctly diagnosed, the likelihood of his survival had decreased to 25%. Moreover, the delay had limited the range of treatment options available to the claimant.
Issues
Could a claimant successfully claim for their ‘loss of a chance’, that is a greater likelihood of having survived treatment.
Decision/Outcome
The House of Lords held (in a notably and controversially split 3 – 2 decision) cited Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750 with approval. Thus, whilst the defendant had indeed been negligent in his original assessment, it remained that loss of a chance was not a form of injury for which one could claim damages for tortious negligence in relation to medical problems.
Words: 257
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate. Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2 (also reported as [2005] 2 AC 176) was indeed a 3–2 House of Lords decision confirming that loss of a chance of a better medical outcome does not constitute actionable damage in clinical negligence claims, and that Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750 was applied. The legal position described in the article continues to represent the law in England and Wales. There have been no subsequent Supreme Court decisions overruling or significantly departing from Gregg v Scott on this point, and the principle that loss of a chance is not recoverable in personal injury cases (as distinct from purely economic loss cases such as Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602) remains settled. Readers should note that the article’s citation in the opening line refers to the Weekly Law Reports reference ([2005] 2 WLR 268) rather than the authoritative Appeal Cases report ([2005] 2 AC 176), and the UKHL neutral citation is [2005] UKHL 2. One minor point: the article’s framing of the issue as the chance of "survival" is slightly imprecise — the precise issue was the reduced prospects of disease-free survival at ten years, not immediate survival. These points do not affect the core legal accuracy of the summary.
