This is an action alleging professional negligence against the registrar on duty in the labour ward… in respect of the birth of the pursuer’s son, whom I shall refer to as Baby B, in 2005…at about the age of three years he was diagnosed with severe cerebral palsy. (paragraph 1)

The three-week proof was restricted to the issue of negligence…The grounds of fault maintained against the registrar are that she was negligent in the following respects:

(1) The registrar [negligently] interpreted the CGT trace as normal or reassuring at or about 22:30 hours…

(2) The registrar did not expedite Baby B’s birth by alternative means…

(3) The registrar did not inform the pursuer of the risk of fetal compromise or obtain her consent… (paragraph 2)

[There was detailed factual and expert evidence on the CTG with references to guidelines and published literature, particularly the determination of the fetal baseline heart rate.]

…the dividing line, for the purposes of liability, is whether the registrar was negligent in not classifying the CTG as pathological. A characterisation of it as only suspicious would not suffice to establish liability, for the purposes of the CTG interpretation case. (paragraph 309)

Having regard to the expert evidence I have preferred, I would not have found that the CTG was pathological at the material time. Accordingly, the pursuer’s CTG interpretation case fails. On the common approach of the parties (referred to above, at para [259]), the failure to expedite delivery case also fails. No treatment would have been mandated in the event the CTG had been (or should have been) classified as no more than suspicious. (paragraph 315)

Given the registrar’s interpretation of the CTG, which was not negligent, no intervention was mandated. (paragraph 329)

…the pursuer’s liability case fails on the grounds maintained at proof. (paragraph 331)