Kapfunde v Abbey National Plc & Anor [1998] EWCA Civ 535 (25 March 1998)

Kapfunde v Abbey National Plc & Anor [1998] EWCA Civ 535 (25 March 1998)

There was no special relationship or sufficient proximity between Dr Daniel and the appellant to give rise to a duty of care in tort. Dr Daniel was engaged under a contract for services to advise Abbey National, not the appellant. Any duty of care was owed to Abbey National, not to the job applicant. Even if a duty existed, there was no breach as Dr Daniel's actions were within the range of reasonable responses for an occupational health physician.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 535
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Kapfunde; First Respondent: Abbey National plc; Second Respondent: Dr D Daniel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Contract for Services Vs Contract of Service, Economic Loss, Professional Negligence
Tort Law Employment Law Negligence Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Contract for Services Vs Contract of Service Economic Loss Professional Negligence

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kapfunde

Plaintiff/appellant

Abbey National plc

First Respondent

Dr D Daniel

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Daniel owed a duty of care in tort to the appellant, a job applicant, when conducting a pre-employment medical assessment for Abbey National.
  2. 2 Whether Abbey National was vicariously liable for any negligence by Dr Daniel.
  3. 3 Whether Dr Daniel was engaged under a contract of service or a contract for services.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no special relationship or sufficient proximity between Dr Daniel and the appellant to give rise to a duty of care in tort. Dr Daniel was engaged under a contract for services to advise Abbey National, not the appellant. Any duty of care was owed to Abbey National, not to the job applicant. Even if a duty existed, there was no breach as Dr Daniel's actions were within the range of reasonable responses for an occupational health physician.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Costs of the first respondent (Abbey National) to be paid by the Legal Aid Board, with appellant's liability assessed at nil.