Hamed v Mills & Ors

Hamed v Mills & Ors

Both Dr Mills and the football club breached their respective duties of care to the claimant. Dr Mills failed to make clear the continuing requirement for a clinical review, and the club, through Dr Cowie, negligently concluded there was no cardiac risk and failed to arrange a mandated clinical review or communicate the risk to the claimant and his family. Had the risk been communicated, the claimant would not have continued playing and would have avoided injury. The club bears the major share of liability due to its primary responsibility for follow-up and communication.

Parties
Claimant: Radwan Hamed (a Protected Party through his Father and 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
Civil Negligence / Judgment on Liability and Apportionment
Outcome
Liability apportioned between defendants; both found negligent.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Vicarious Liability, Employer's Liability, Medical Record Keeping, Informed Consent
Tort Law Medical Negligence Employment Law Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation Vicarious Liability Employer's Liability +2 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Radwan Hamed (a Protected Party through his Father and Litigation Friend Raymon Hamed)

Claimant

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

Civil Negligence / Judgment on Liability and Apportionment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care to the claimant resulting in catastrophic injury
  2. 2 Whether the football club and its doctors failed to arrange a mandated clinical review and communicate cardiac risk
  3. 3 Appropriate apportionment of liability between the cardiologist and the football club

Ratio Decidendi

Both Dr Mills and the football club breached their respective duties of care to the claimant. Dr Mills failed to make clear the continuing requirement for a clinical review, and the club, through Dr Cowie, negligently concluded there was no cardiac risk and failed to arrange a mandated clinical review or communicate the risk to the claimant and his family. Had the risk been communicated, the claimant would not have continued playing and would have avoided injury. The club bears the major share of liability due to its primary responsibility for follow-up and communication.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned between defendants; both found negligent.

Orders

  • First Defendant Dr Mills to bear 30% of liability.
  • Second Defendant Tottenham Hotspur Football Club to bear 70% of liability.