Bishara v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 353 (26 March 2007)

Bishara v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 353 (26 March 2007)

The appeal was allowed because the existence of a duty of care in the circumstances depended on disputed facts that should be determined at trial, and it was arguable that sufficient proximity and assumption of responsibility could arise if the appellant's account was believed. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 353
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Bishara; Defendant/respondent: Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Summary Judgment (striking Out) Under CPR Part 24
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Summary Judgment, Proximity, Assumption of Responsibility
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care Summary Judgment Proximity Assumption of Responsibility

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bishara

Claimant/appellant

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Summary Judgment (striking Out) Under CPR Part 24

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant in the circumstances alleged
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out as having no real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the existence of a duty of care in the circumstances depended on disputed facts that should be determined at trial, and it was arguable that sufficient proximity and assumption of responsibility could arise if the appellant's account was believed. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of HHJ Hampton (30 June 2006) and District Judge Hudson (20 February 2006) set aside
  • Defendant's application for summary judgment under CPR 24.2 dismissed