Iris Hughes v Rajendra Rattan

Iris Hughes v Rajendra Rattan

The owner of a dental practice owes a non-delegable duty of care to patients treated at the practice, including by self-employed associate dentists, as the relationship and arrangements satisfy the Woodland factors. However, the relationship between the owner and the associates is not sufficiently akin to employment to impose vicarious liability under the Barclays test, given the associates' independence, control over their work, and business risks.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Iris Hughes; Defendant/appellant: Rajendra Rattan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Delegable Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Dental Negligence, Employment Relationships, Independent Contractor Liability
Tort Law Medical Negligence Non Delegable Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Dental Negligence Employment Relationships Independent Contractor Liability

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 2 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iris Hughes

Claimant/respondent

Rajendra Rattan

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the owner of a dental practice owes a non-delegable duty of care to patients treated by self-employed associate dentists
  2. 2 Whether the owner is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of self-employed associate dentists

Ratio Decidendi

The owner of a dental practice owes a non-delegable duty of care to patients treated at the practice, including by self-employed associate dentists, as the relationship and arrangements satisfy the Woodland factors. However, the relationship between the owner and the associates is not sufficiently akin to employment to impose vicarious liability under the Barclays test, given the associates' independence, control over their work, and business risks.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the finding of a non-delegable duty of care is upheld; the finding of vicarious liability is overturned.