Full case report
West Bromwich Albion FC v El-Safty
Reference  EWCA Civ 1299; (2007) PIQR P7; (2007) LS Law Medical 50; (2006) 92 BMLR 179
Court Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judge Mummery & Rix LJJ & Peter Smith J
Date of Judgment 11 Oct 2006
Sport – football – medical negligence – club’s insurance scheme – doctor’s advice to player – duty of care to club – proximity – economic loss
A club (W) arranged medical insurance with I Co, to cover W’s players. A was one of those players, but not a party to the insurance contract. W and A agreed that any advice or treatment would be without cost to A. A surgeon (E) was a service provider who gave advice to A pursuant to the scheme, his fees being covered by I Co. E gave negligent advice which, when followed, brough A’s career to an end. W sued E for damages for negligence, alleging that E owed W a duty of care under a collateral contract and/or in tort. Royce Preliminary issues were tried by Royce J as to the existence of such duties. The judge ruled against W and W appealed.
(1) Was there an implied contract between W and E? (2) Did E owe W a duty of care in tort?
Dismissing the appeal, (1) There may have been a contract for medical treatment to be implied between A and E, but it was not necessary to imply any contract between W and E. If there was any contract between them the court should not go beyond the minimum that needed to be implied, namely a contract requiring W to secure payment of E’s fees; the implication of a duty of care was unnecessary. (2) E had not assumed any responsibility in tort for any economic losses W might suffer. E’s role under the scheme was to advise and treat A, and A’s welfare was his exclusive concern. The facts that economic loss to W was foreseeable by E, and there was a degree of proximity , were not enough to make it just and equitable to impose a duty of care.
The insurance scheme (with BUPA) was specifically devised to meet an FA requirement that clubs be covered by medical insurance for players’ treatment. W was driven to try to imply from a course of dealings a relationship between it and the surgeon, involving a duty owed to W. The more natural approach, however, was to view the scheme as aimed at ensuring medical treatment for A (as opposed to the protection of W’s economic interests). A and E were patient and doctor, and the club’s role was that of a referring intermediary, ensuring that A got treatment. The burden of insuring against losses of the kind at issue should fall on the club, not the doctor.
Nexus for the Appellant; Medical Protection Society for the Respondent
More from 5RB
5RB is the pre-eminent set in the area for handling defamation, privacy, contempt and data protection matters. Interviewees praise the set for having great depth and quality of counsel, and note that it boasts many of the top barristers in the field. Get the lowdown here.
New 22nd Edition of Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, published by Sweet & Maxwell. Further info here.