Brayshaw v The Partners of Apsley Surgery & Anor

Brayshaw v The Partners of Apsley Surgery & Anor

Dr O’Brien was negligent in exposing the Claimant, a vulnerable patient, to foreseeable psychiatric harm through religious proselytization and related conduct, without adequate medical oversight or boundaries. However, his conduct did not amount to intentional infliction of harm or harassment. The First Defendants were not vicariously liable as Dr O’Brien acted outside the scope of his engagement as a locum GP, and his religious activities were not part of the business of the surgery.

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 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim against Second Defendant (Dr O’Brien) succeeds in negligence; claim against First Defendants (Apsley Surgery) dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Harm, Harassment, Vicarious Liability, Professional Misconduct
Tort Law Medical Negligence Negligence Intentional Infliction of Harm Harassment Vicarious Liability Professional Misconduct

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr O’Brien was tortiously liable for psychiatric harm caused to the Claimant through religious proselytization and related conduct
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendants (Apsley Surgery) were vicariously liable for Dr O’Brien’s conduct
  3. 3 Whether the conduct amounted to intentional infliction of harm, harassment, or negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Dr O’Brien was negligent in exposing the Claimant, a vulnerable patient, to foreseeable psychiatric harm through religious proselytization and related conduct, without adequate medical oversight or boundaries. However, his conduct did not amount to intentional infliction of harm or harassment. The First Defendants were not vicariously liable as Dr O’Brien acted outside the scope of his engagement as a locum GP, and his religious activities were not part of the business of the surgery.

Court Disposition

Claim against Second Defendant (Dr O’Brien) succeeds in negligence; claim against First Defendants (Apsley Surgery) dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant against the Second Defendant for £12,712.50 in damages and interest.
  • Claim against the First Defendants dismissed.