Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36

The plaintiff (C), a pregnant and asthmatic woman, was at home and incurred respiratory problems, so her GP went to visit her; C’s condition worsened and eventually it became apparent that she had been suffering from bronchial asthma The GP called 999 at 4.27 pm to request an ambulance to take the patient to hospital and provided C’s details Although the nearest ambulance was about 6.5 miles away from C’s home, it took nearly 40 minutes to arrive and an ambulance crew member recorded a false arrival time of 4.47 pm Due to the grossly inadequate medical intervention, C suffered a miscarriage, a memory impairment and a personality change

• LAS appalled on a policy decision ground, i.e. it considered itself an institution similar to the police or the fire brigade, which were protected under from owing a common law duty of care to the public at large

The Court of Appeal upheld liability for the unjustified ambulance delay. The service had accepted the request concerning an identified patient and the delay caused additional injury. It was not appropriate to treat the ambulance service as automatically exempt merely because other emergency services can face different duty questions. The case involved provision of healthcare to a particular person, rather than a general failure to protect the public. No adequate operational justification for the delay was established on the facts. The decision does not require an ambulance to arrive instantly or make every delay negligent; breach and its medical consequences still require proof.

An ambulance service which accepts a request concerning an identified patient may owe a duty to respond with reasonable care. Kent upheld liability for an unjustified delay causing additional injury. It does not establish a guarantee of immediate arrival or liability for every delay.

Kent illustrates a specific healthcare relationship rather than a universal public-duty exception. The accepted call, identified patient and absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay were central. Darnley later reinforces the importance of treating established healthcare duties coherently across service functions. The claim concerns an ordinary negligence obligation rather than enforcement of an unavoidable public-law duty. Establishing that relationship does not dispense with proof of breach and causation in the actual circumstances of the response.