• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

Brace yourselves: dentists could be liable for actions of self-employed staff

Dental practice owners should take note of the recent ruling in Hughes v Rattan [2021] EWHC 2032 (QB), which found that the owner of a dental practice owed an NHS patient a non-delegable duty of care in respect of the treatment provided by the self-employed associate dentists working at his practice. The practice owner was found to be vicariously liable for their acts and omissions.

The relationship between the practice, the patient, the owner and the associates in this case was not unusual:

  • The practice allocated the patient a practice reference number, held her records, arranged her appointments (although a particular dentist could be requested) and took her payment. The personal dental treatment plan she was provided with named the practice owner as the provider of the course of treatment.
  • The associate agreements used were the British Dental Association’s standard template contract and it was agreed that any payment received by the practice owner from the PCT in respect of NHS services provided to patients would be spilt 50:50 between the practice owner and the associate who treated the patient.
  • Under the GDS contract between the PCT and the practice owner, the practice owner was the “Contractor” responsible for providing dental services and who received all payment from the PCT. As “Contractor”, he could deliver these services via associates provided he complied with a series of requirements in relation to their selection, training and oversight.

The court applied the finding of the 2014 case of Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association and others in reaching its decision. In the Woodland case, the Court considered the five factors that indicate whether a non-delegable duty of care exists, being:

  1. A claimant who is a patient or a child, or for some other reason especially vulnerable or dependent on the protection of the defendant against the risk of injury;
  2. The existence of an antecedent relationship between the claimant and the defendant which either places the claimant in the actual custody, charge or care of the defendant, or from which you can impute a positive duty on the part of the defendant to protect the claimant from harm;
  3. The claimant having no control over how the defendant chooses to perform its obligations to the claimant;
  4. The delegation by the defendant to a third party some function which is an integral part of the positive duty he has assumed towards the claimant; and
  5. The negligence of the third party in the performance of that function.

Applying these factorsit was held that the practice owner owed a non-delegable duty of care practice to the patient, despite not once treating her directly. The practice owner was duly held liable to the patient for any negligence on the part of the associates. The court also noted that the practice owner could also be vicariously liable in this situation as his relationship with the associates was ‘akin to employment’.

Prudent practitioners would do well to dust off the terms of their insurance policies in light of the findings and ensure that they are adequately protected in the event of such a claim arising.

Our thinking

  • When is 20% not 20%? The real impact of the proposed changes to business property relief on trading companies

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

  • The EU Omnibus: resetting the rules on sustainability due diligence

    Kerry Stares

    Insights

  • The Times and Daily Mail quote Dan Pollard on new changes to the Employment Rights Bill

    Dan Pollard

    In the Press

  • Paul Arathoon writes for City AM on rising executive pay at large listed companies

    Paul Arathoon

    In the Press

  • What do the proposed changes to business property relief mean for Investors and Entrepreneurs and their businesses?

    Mary Perham

    Insights

  • Joanne Searle and Ciara McEwen write for The Carer on what the Labour government is doing for the future of social care

    Joanne Searle

    In the Press

  • Further jurisdictional transposition of the ISSB Standards, this time in Hong Kong

    Shirley Fu

    Insights

  • Mike Barrington writes for Wealth Briefing on sole company directors

    Mike Barrington

    In the Press

  • Stephen Burns and Katie Bewick write for Growth Business on the options available for appointing a new director after a company dispute

    Stephen Burns

    In the Press

  • A Labour of Love: The impact on the future of social care under the Labour budget

    Joanne Searle

    Quick Reads

  • Mahmood v Standard Chartered Bank – A landmark decision in discrimination and victimisation but what does it mean for discrimination claims in the DIFC?

    Nick Hurley

    Insights

  • HR Magazine quotes Lucy Lintott on employees who are unable to work due to poor health or disability

    Lucy Lintott

    In the Press

  • Beyond Dry January: The Rise of the Low and Non-Alcoholic Beverage Sector

    Iwan Thomas

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys hosts Hard Conversations and Smart Conflict®, a Women in Leadership event

    Sarah Wigington

    News

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises Puma Growth Partners on its lead investment as part of a $4.3 million funding round for finance-focused legal AI specialist, Semeris

    David Coates

    News

  • Corporate deal round-up H2 2024

    David Coates

    Insights

  • Appointment of company directors – who can do it and how?

    Stephen Burns

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises Acora on its acquisition of Elastacloud

    Mark Howard

    News

  • Up in the AI: GenAI and Changing Business Models

    Joe Cohen

    Podcasts

  • Insights from FRC’s review of Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“CFD”) by AIM and large private companies

    Megan Gray

    Quick Reads

Back to top