A (A Child), Re

A (A Child), Re

The Ministry of Defence did not owe a non-delegable duty of care to the claimant for the acts of the German hospital or its staff. Its duty was limited to exercising reasonable care in selecting and arranging for secondary medical care, which it discharged by contracting with GST to procure German hospital services. There was no policy justification to extend liability to the MoD for the negligence of independent foreign providers.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: A (A Child) (by his mother and litigation friend B); Defendants/respondents: Ministry of Defence & Anor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Delegable Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Jurisdiction, Hospital Liability, Duty of Care in Military Context
Tort Law Medical Negligence Public Law Non Delegable Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Jurisdiction Hospital Liability Duty of Care in Military Context

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A (A Child) (by his mother and litigation friend B)

Claimant/appellant

Ministry of Defence & Anor

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ministry of Defence owed a non-delegable duty of care to the claimant for medical treatment received in a German hospital
  2. 2 Whether English or German law governs the standard of care
  3. 3 Whether public policy supports imposing such a duty on the MoD

Ratio Decidendi

The Ministry of Defence did not owe a non-delegable duty of care to the claimant for the acts of the German hospital or its staff. Its duty was limited to exercising reasonable care in selecting and arranging for secondary medical care, which it discharged by contracting with GST to procure German hospital services. There was no policy justification to extend liability to the MoD for the negligence of independent foreign providers.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Public funding order in respect of the Appellant's costs