De Maynard v Streatham Hill Veterinary Surgery [2001] EWCA Civ 1728 (8 November 2001)

De Maynard v Streatham Hill Veterinary Surgery [2001] EWCA Civ 1728 (8 November 2001)

There was a substantial body of reputable veterinary opinion supporting the course of action taken by Mr Hill, and the failure to explain risks did not amount to negligence under the Bolam test as applied in Sidaway. No evidence established causation between the vaccination and the dog's illness. The appeal had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1728
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Dr Vernon De Maynard; Respondent/defendant: Streatham Hill Veterinary Surgery
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Veterinary Negligence, Standard of Care, Informed Consent, Causation
Tort Law Professional Negligence Veterinary Negligence Standard of Care Informed Consent Causation

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Vernon De Maynard

Applicant/claimant

Streatham Hill Veterinary Surgery

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant veterinary surgeon was negligent in administering a second vaccination containing DHPPi to the claimant's dog
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to inform the claimant of differing expert opinions regarding over-vaccination and associated risks
  3. 3 Whether the lack of informed consent constituted negligence under English law

Ratio Decidendi

There was a substantial body of reputable veterinary opinion supporting the course of action taken by Mr Hill, and the failure to explain risks did not amount to negligence under the Bolam test as applied in Sidaway. No evidence established causation between the vaccination and the dog's illness. The appeal had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused