Justice Morgan blasts NHS trust for late disclosures in sensitive child life-support court case
A High Court judge has severely criticised an NHS trust after it dumped thousands of pages of evidence days before a critical hearing to decide whether to withdraw life support from a gravely ill child.
In Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v KB & Ors, Mrs Justice Morgan condemned the trust’s handling of disclosure as “enormously disrespectful” and “professionally beyond discourteous” towards the family and legal teams involved.
Just a week before the final hearing, the trust produced more than 3,000 pages of documents—despite previously asserting no further records existed. Four days before the scheduled start, its barrister disclosed an additional 800 pages had suddenly been “discovered”.
The judge, clearly exasperated, highlighted the chaos this created for the child’s parents and their legal counsel. “There is an obligation to put before the court and provide to those acting for the child’s parent and those appointed to represent the child’s best interests the material necessary to properly evaluate the evidence,” she said.
Despite recognising the injustice caused by the last-minute deluge of material, Justice Morgan declined to adjourn the hearing. She explained the urgency of the case meant the trial had to proceed, although she granted a two-day delay to allow some extra preparation.
The application by the trust to end life-sustaining treatment was ultimately dismissed, with the judge ordering a fresh hearing to scrutinise the disclosure issues. She demanded personal assurances from senior figures in both the trust’s legal and medical departments that all relevant material had now been disclosed.
Embed from Getty ImagesDuring the hearing, the trust’s legal services manager issued an apology, stating: “On behalf of the trust, I offer my sincere apologies for the oversight which occurred in procuring the records. I recognise that this was not what should be expected by the court or the parties.”
Justice Morgan acknowledged the apology and noted that efforts were being made to rebuild trust with the family. However, she made clear that the handling of disclosure in this case fell far below acceptable standards.
In her judgment, she issued a stark reminder to NHS trusts across the country: “These are, without hyperbole, issues of life and death. Such hearings require the highest standard of preparation and disclosure. Delays and disorganisation not only hinder justice but cause unacceptable additional distress to already traumatised families.”
The judge called on all health authorities to make urgent reforms to avoid a repeat of this failure. She recommended early indexing of medical records, assigning a named person responsible for disclosure, ensuring the index is available to the court, and verifying the quality and completeness of all copied documents.
This latest incident follows increasing scrutiny of public institutions over poor disclosure practices, most recently in the Post Office Inquiry. The common thread, judges argue, is that late evidence—whether in civil, criminal or family courts—can undermine justice and corrode public trust.
While the trust in this case has pledged improvements, Mrs Justice Morgan’s sharp rebuke signals a growing intolerance in the judiciary for procedural sloppiness in life-and-death cases.
