West Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El -Safty [2006] EWCA Civ 1299 (11 October 2006)

West Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El -Safty [2006] EWCA Civ 1299 (11 October 2006)

No contract, express or implied, existed between the club and the doctor for medical services to the player; the arrangements for payment and involvement of the club did not necessitate such a contract. The doctor owed no duty of care in tort to the club for economic loss, as there was insufficient proximity, no assumption of responsibility, and it would not be fair, just or reasonable to impose such a duty. The dominant relationship was between doctor and patient, not doctor and employer.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1299
Parties
Appellant/claimant: West Bromwich Albion Football Club Limited; Respondent/defendant: Mohamed El-Safty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Economic Loss, Implied Contract, Assumption of Responsibility, Proximity, Medical Treatment Liability
Contract Law Tort Law Medical Negligence Duty of Care Economic Loss Implied Contract Assumption of Responsibility Proximity +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

West Bromwich Albion Football Club Limited

Appellant/claimant

Mohamed El-Safty

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract existed between the club and the doctor for medical services to the player
  2. 2 Whether the doctor owed a duty of care in tort to the club for economic loss arising from negligent medical advice to the player

Ratio Decidendi

No contract, express or implied, existed between the club and the doctor for medical services to the player; the arrangements for payment and involvement of the club did not necessitate such a contract. The doctor owed no duty of care in tort to the club for economic loss, as there was insufficient proximity, no assumption of responsibility, and it would not be fair, just or reasonable to impose such a duty. The dominant relationship was between doctor and patient, not doctor and employer.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed