Jowhari v NHS England [2014] EWHC 4197 (QB) (11 December 2014)

Jowhari v NHS England [2014] EWHC 4197 (QB) (11 December 2014)

The statutory scheme for dental performers lists is designed to protect the public, not the economic interests of dentists. No private law duty of care arises under the regulations or at common law to protect the claimant from economic loss resulting from removal from the list. There were no special circumstances justifying imposition of such a duty. Even if a duty existed, there was no breach or causation of loss attributable to the defendant's actions.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4197 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Dr. Haitham Jowhari; Defendant: NHS England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Negligence And/or Breach of Statutory Duty Claim / High Court Judgment (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Statutory Duty, Economic Loss, Performers List, NHS Dentistry, Duty of Care
Tort Law Administrative Law Health Law Negligence Statutory Duty Economic Loss Performers List NHS Dentistry +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Haitham Jowhari

Claimant

NHS England

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence And/or Breach of Statutory Duty Claim / High Court Judgment (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of the claimant from the dental performers list was unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the statutory scheme or common law imposed a duty of care on the defendant to protect the claimant from economic loss
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of duty and causation of loss

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory scheme for dental performers lists is designed to protect the public, not the economic interests of dentists. No private law duty of care arises under the regulations or at common law to protect the claimant from economic loss resulting from removal from the list. There were no special circumstances justifying imposition of such a duty. Even if a duty existed, there was no breach or causation of loss attributable to the defendant's actions.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed