Glyn v McGarel-Groves

Glyn v McGarel-Groves

Mr Glyn's duty, as found by the trial judge and upheld by the majority, included not only observing the treatment but also intervening if the treatment was remotely inappropriate or contrary to Anna's welfare. By failing to enquire about the drugs and dosages administered by Msr Grandiere, Mr Glyn rendered himself unable to fulfil this duty and was therefore in breach of contract and liable for negligence.

Parties
Claimant/appellant/first Part 20 Defendant: Philip John Glyn; Defendant/respondent/first Claimant (part 20): Jane McGarel-Groves; Second Part 20 Defendant (first Claim)/part 20 Claimant (second Claim): Erik Grandiere; Part 20 Defendant (second Claim): Clinique Veterinaire Equine De Chantilly
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (by majority); trial judge's finding of liability against Mr Glyn upheld
Legal Topics
Veterinary Negligence, Scope of Professional Duty, Contractual Retainer, Duty to Intervene, Apportionment of Liability
Professional Negligence Contract Law Veterinary Negligence Scope of Professional Duty Contractual Retainer Duty to Intervene Apportionment of 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip John Glyn

Claimant/appellant/first Part 20 Defendant

Jane McGarel-Groves

Defendant/respondent/first Claimant (part 20)

Erik Grandiere

Second Part 20 Defendant (first Claim)/part 20 Claimant (second Claim)

Clinique Veterinaire Equine De Chantilly

Part 20 Defendant (second Claim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the scope of Mr Glyn's contractual duty of care to Mrs McGarel-Groves?
  2. 2 Did Mr Glyn breach his duty by failing to enquire about the treatment administered by Msr Grandiere?
  3. 3 Was the judge correct to find Mr Glyn liable for negligence?

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Glyn's duty, as found by the trial judge and upheld by the majority, included not only observing the treatment but also intervening if the treatment was remotely inappropriate or contrary to Anna's welfare. By failing to enquire about the drugs and dosages administered by Msr Grandiere, Mr Glyn rendered himself unable to fulfil this duty and was therefore in breach of contract and liable for negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (by majority); trial judge's finding of liability against Mr Glyn upheld

Orders

  • Mr Glyn held liable to Mrs McGarel-Groves for agreed sum of £350,000 (including his outstanding fees)
  • Apportionment of liability between Mr Glyn (85%) and Msr Grandiere (15%) stands