Brayshaw v The Partners of Apsley Surgery & Anor [2018] EWHC 3286 (QB) (30 November 2018)

Brayshaw v The Partners of Apsley Surgery & Anor [2018] EWHC 3286 (QB) (30 November 2018)

Dr O’Brien’s conduct, while unprofessional and a breach of medical standards, did not amount to tortious conduct for which the First Defendants could be held vicariously liable. The acts complained of were not sufficiently closely connected to his role as a locum GP, and the Claimant was aware that the religious activities were separate from her medical treatment. The claim against the First Defendants fails. Judgment is entered for the Claimant against Dr O’Brien for such damages as assessed, but not against the First Defendants.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3286
Parties
Claimant: Mrs Sally Brayshaw; First Defendant: The Partners of Apsley Surgery; Second Defendant: Mr Thomas O’Brien
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Tort Claim (psychiatric Harm, Vicarious Liability) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim against First Defendants dismissed; judgment for Claimant against Second Defendant (Dr O’Brien) for assessed damages.
Legal Topics
Intentional Infliction of Harm, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Professional Misconduct, Harassment, Duty of Care, Breach of Confidentiality
Tort Law Medical Law Employment Law Intentional Infliction of Harm Negligence Vicarious Liability Professional Misconduct Harassment +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Sally Brayshaw

Claimant

The Partners of Apsley Surgery

First Defendant

Mr Thomas O’Brien

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Claim (psychiatric Harm, Vicarious Liability) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr O’Brien’s conduct amounted to a tort (intentional infliction of harm, negligence, harassment)
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendants (the GP partners) are vicariously liable for Dr O’Brien’s conduct as a locum GP

Ratio Decidendi

Dr O’Brien’s conduct, while unprofessional and a breach of medical standards, did not amount to tortious conduct for which the First Defendants could be held vicariously liable. The acts complained of were not sufficiently closely connected to his role as a locum GP, and the Claimant was aware that the religious activities were separate from her medical treatment. The claim against the First Defendants fails. Judgment is entered for the Claimant against Dr O’Brien for such damages as assessed, but not against the First Defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim against First Defendants dismissed; judgment for Claimant against Second Defendant (Dr O’Brien) for assessed damages.

Orders

  • Claim against the Partners of Apsley Surgery dismissed.
  • Judgment for Claimant against Dr O’Brien for damages to be assessed.