Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
A v Ministry of Defence
[2003] EWHC 849 (QB), [2003] 26 LS Gaz R 39, (2003) Times, 16 May, [2003] All ER (D) 312 (Apr)
Court: QBD
Judgment Date: 16/04/2003
Case History
Annotations | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
- | A (a child) v Ministry of Defence | [2004] EWCA Civ 641, [2005] QB 183, [2004] 3 WLR 469, 82 BMLR 149, [2004] 22 LS Gaz R 32, (2004) Times, 17 May, [2004] All ER (D) 96 (May) | CA | 07/05/200 | |
Affirming | A v Ministry of Defence | [2003] EWHC 849 (QB), [2003] 26 LS Gaz R 39, (2003) Times, 16 May, [2003] All ER (D) 312 (Apr) | QBD | 16/04/200 |
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Considered | Caparo Industries plc v Dickman | [1990] 2 AC 605, [1990] 1 All ER 568, [1990] 2 WLR 358, [1990] BCLC 273, [1990] BCC 164, 134 Sol Jo 494, [1990] 12 LS Gaz R 42, [1990] NLJR 248 | HL | circa 1990 | |
Considered | Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority | [1988] AC 1074, [1988] 1 All ER 871, [1988] 2 WLR 557, 132 Sol Jo 418, [1988] 15 LS Gaz R 37, [1988] NLJR 78 | HL | circa 1988 | |
Considered | Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd | [1959] AC 604, [1959] 1 All ER 346, [1959] 2 WLR 331, 103 Sol Jo 177 | HL | circa 1959 | |
Considered | Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis | [1955] AC 549, [1955] 1 All ER 565, [1955] 2 WLR 517, 53 LGR 230, 119 JP 230, 99 Sol Jo 167 | HL | circa 1955 | |
Considered | Cassidy v Ministry of Health | [1951] 2 KB 343, [1951] 1 All ER 574, 95 Sol Jo 253, [1951] 1 TLR 539 | CA | circa 1951 | |
Considered | Gold v Essex County Council | [1942] 2 KB 293, [1942] 2 All ER 237, 40 LGR 249, 106 JP 242, 112 LJKB 1, 86 Sol Jo 295, 167 LT 166, 58 TLR 357 | CA | circa 1942 | |
Considered | Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English | [1938] AC 57, [1937] 3 All ER 628, 106 LJPC 117, 81 Sol Jo 700, 157 LT 406, 53 TLR 944 | HL | circa 1938 |
NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - HEALTH AUTHORITY - PROCUREMENT OF HEALTHCARE FOR SERVICE PERSONNEL AND THEIR DEPENDANTS POSTED OVERSEAS - SCOPE OF DUTY
From 1996 onwards, secondary care for service personnel and their dependants posted in Germany was provided by a designated German provider hospital (DGP). In 1996, the first defendant contracted with the second defendant, an NHS hospital trust, to procure secondary healthcare in DGPs. Pursuant to that contract, the second defendant entered into contracts with a number of DGPs. The claimant was born in a DGP to the wife of a serving soldier stationed in Germany. He suffered serious and permanent brain damage during the course of his birth. It was agreed that the medical treatment given during the birth was negligent by both English and German standards. Proceedings were brought pursuant to CPR Pt 8 to determine whether a serviceman, or one of his dependants, stationed in Germany who suffered an injury as the result of the negligence of a German medical practitioner in a DGP, had to seek a remedy in Germany under German law from the relevant practitioner, or whether he could bring an action in England against either the first or second defendant.
Held - A special relationship existed between the first defendant and service personnel and their dependants in Germany, which imposed a duty on the first defendant to provide access to an appropriate regime of secondary healthcare in Germany. The nature of that duty was to exercise reasonable care in selecting and putting into action appropriate providers. The first defendant discharged that duty in contracting with the second defendant to procure DGPs and to manage their contracts. In the circumstances, it was fair, just and reasonable that the second defendant should be under a duty, in relation to British patients, to exercise reasonable care in procuring the services of DGPs and managing its contracts with them, but no more than that. There was no basis for a duty or obligation on either the first or second defendant to ensure that reasonable care and skill was used in secondary hospital treatment in Germany. It followed that any further proceedings on A's behalf remained to be brought in Germany against a German defendant.
