Hamed v Mills & Ors [2015] EWHC 298 (QB) (16 February 2015)

Hamed v Mills & Ors [2015] EWHC 298 (QB) (16 February 2015)

Both Dr Mills and the Club breached their respective duties to the Claimant. The Club, through Dr Cowie, was negligent in concluding there was no cardiac risk and failing to arrange a clinical review and communicate the risk, which would have prevented the catastrophic event. Apportionment favours the Club bearing the major proportion of liability.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 298
Parties
Claimant: Radwan Hamed; Litigation Friend: Raymon Hamed; First Defendant: Dr Peter George Mills; Second Defendant: Tottenham Hotspur Football Club and Athletic Limited; First Third Party: Dr Charlotte Myong Cowie; Second Third Party: Dr Mark John Curtin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/clinical Negligence / Liability Trial
Outcome
Liability established against both Dr Mills and the Club; Club to bear major proportion of liability.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Vicarious Liability, Apportionment of Liability, Clinical Review, Medical Screening, Employer's Duty, Sports Medicine
Tort Medical Negligence Employment Law Duty of Care Breach of Duty Vicarious Liability Apportionment of Liability Clinical Review +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Radwan Hamed

Claimant

Raymon Hamed

Litigation Friend

Dr Peter George Mills

First Defendant

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club and Athletic Limited

Second Defendant

Dr Charlotte Myong Cowie

First Third Party

Dr Mark John Curtin

Second Third Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/clinical Negligence / Liability Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Club breached its duty of care to the Claimant by failing to arrange a clinical review and communicate cardiac risk
  2. 2 Whether Dr Cowie was negligent in concluding there was no cardiac risk
  3. 3 Apportionment of liability between Dr Mills and the Club

Ratio Decidendi

Both Dr Mills and the Club breached their respective duties to the Claimant. The Club, through Dr Cowie, was negligent in concluding there was no cardiac risk and failing to arrange a clinical review and communicate the risk, which would have prevented the catastrophic event. Apportionment favours the Club bearing the major proportion of liability.

Court Disposition

Liability established against both Dr Mills and the Club; Club to bear major proportion of liability.

Orders

  • Third Parties to indemnify the Club for any damages payable to the Claimant as per Consent Order dated 4 February 2015.
  • Damages to be assessed in subsequent proceedings.