UK: Vet Who Carried Out A Pre-Purchase Examination Of A Horse Was Not Negligent In Failing To Make A Written Record

Blass v Randall [2008] EWHC 107 (QB)

The facts: D was a veterinary surgeon who had arranged for a horse to undergo surgery to its legs. A year later, D carried out a pre-purchase examination of the horse for C. D issued a certificate which made no reference to the surgery or problems with the horse's legs. After buying the horse, C sued D in negligence.

D contended that she had told C verbally about the surgery. C had a different recollection of the conversation, but the main thrust of her case was that D had fallen below the standard of an ordinarily competent veterinary surgeon by not recording that information in the pre-purchase examination certificate. C drew support for that view from a manual of the British Equine Veterinary Association which was expressed to be a "collection of personal views of experienced practitioners intended primarily to raise awareness of the issues and arguments involved in the current concept of the pre-purchase examination."

The decision: The judge decided that the basic obligations of a vet to the client are to conduct the clinical examination of the horse with reasonable skill and care and to communicate clearly and comprehensibly to the client the results of the examination, any relevant history of the horse of which the vet is aware, and the significance of those results and that history, having regard to what the vet knows about the intended use of the horse. As long as the information is communicated clearly and comprehensibly to the client, the judge saw no need for it to be communicated or confirmed in writing.

The manual on which C relied did not purport to set out the standards to be attained by any reasonably competent vet. It sought to raise awareness and improve professional standards. However the judge accepted that the best practice in any profession will always be some distance in advance of the standards of the ordinarily competent practitioner.

So the case turned on the old-fashioned judicial process of deciding who was telling the truth about what D told C about the horse's surgery. The judge preferred D's evidence, so the claim failed.

Comment: Whilst this case turned on whose evidence the judge preferred, it is a useful reminder that the absence of an attendance note or other written record is not always fatal to the defence of a professional negligence claim. Although the lack of a contemporaneous record makes it more difficult to demonstrate that the professional has fulfilled their obligations, particularly strong witnesses can still persuade the court that they have performed their duties. The case also illustrates that professionals do not fall below the standards of an ordinarily competent professional if they fail to live up to "best practice".

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.