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 a serious breach of professional standards, did not amount to a tortious act for which the First Defendants could be held vicariously liable. The connection between his religious activities and his role as a locum GP was insufficiently close to impose vicarious liability. The Claimant’s harm was not caused by acts within the scope of Dr O’Brien’s engagement as a GP, but by conduct outside the doctor-patient relationship.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3286 (QB)
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
Civil Tort Claim / High Court First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed against the First Defendants; judgment for the Claimant against the Second Defendant for such damages as assessed.
Legal Topics
Intentional Infliction of Harm, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Professional Misconduct, Harassment, Duty of Care
Tort Law Medical Law Employment Law Intentional Infliction of Harm Negligence Vicarious Liability Professional Misconduct Harassment +1 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 2 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

Civil Tort Claim / High Court First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr O’Brien’s conduct amounted to a tort (intentional infliction of harm, negligence, or harassment) against the Claimant
  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 a serious breach of professional standards, did not amount to a tortious act for which the First Defendants could be held vicariously liable. The connection between his religious activities and his role as a locum GP was insufficiently close to impose vicarious liability. The Claimant’s harm was not caused by acts within the scope of Dr O’Brien’s engagement as a GP, but by conduct outside the doctor-patient relationship.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed against the First Defendants; judgment for the Claimant against the Second Defendant for such damages as assessed.

Orders

  • Claim against the First Defendants is dismissed.
  • Judgment entered against the Second Defendant for damages to be assessed.