Glyn (t/a Priors Farm Equine Veterinary Surgery) v McGarel-Groves & Ors

A veterinary surgeon who agrees to observe another surgeon’s treatment may owe a duty to obtain sufficient information about the proposed treatment to assess whether intervention is required. That includes making reasonable inquiries about the drugs and dosages where those matters are material to the animal’s welfare. A professional cannot discharge that duty by assuming that an apparently competent colleague will act appropriately. Failure to obtain the information, where it prevents effective intervention and causes injury, may constitute a breach of duty. Liability may be shared between the treating surgeon and the observing surgeon according to their respective roles and responsibilities.

The claimant veterinary surgeon sought payment of undisputed veterinary fees. The effective claim was Mrs McGarel-Groves’s counterclaim for compensation following the death of her valuable dressage horse, Annastasia, from laminitis after cortico-steroid treatment administered by Erik Grandiere in the presence of Philip Glyn. Grandiere was employed by the Clinique Veterinaire Equine de Chantilly, which provided him with an indemnity.

The court determined the drugs and dosages administered, considered the admitted duties arising from Glyn’s role as the horse’s vet and observer of the treatment, and decided whether his failure to inquire and intervene caused loss for which he was liable.

1. Preliminary issue. The court found that Grandiere administered 80 mg of Kenacort 80, containing triamcinolone, into each hock and 20 ml of Voren suspension, containing dexamethasone, into the horse’s back. The contemporaneous handwritten invoice and the evidence of what had been prepared and injected were preferred over Grandiere’s later recollection ([49]–[60]).
2. Grandiere’s liability. It was common ground that there was no clinical justification for the treatment and that no competent veterinary surgeon acting reasonably would have administered it. The treatment was therefore negligent. It was also common ground that the owner should have been warned of the risk of laminitis and that, if warned, she would have refused consent and the death would have been avoided ([62]–[65]).
3. Glyn’s duty. Glyn had accepted duties to observe the treatment and to intervene if it was remotely inappropriate or contrary to the horse’s welfare. A professional tasked with observing a procedure must take reasonable steps to understand what is being observed where the information is unclear or incomplete. Glyn needed to ask about the identity and dosage of the cortico-steroids. Without that information he could not assess whether intervention was required ([66]–[71]).
4. Glyn’s assumption that Grandiere was competent did not discharge that duty. Had he made the necessary inquiries, he would have recognised the treatment as inappropriate and intervened. His failure was causative of the loss.
5. The wider question whether a veterinary surgeon would in every case owe a duty to warn an owner about any cortico-steroid treatment was left undecided as academic on the facts. Judgment was entered for Mrs McGarel-Groves for £350,000. Responsibility was apportioned 85 per cent to Grandiere and 15 per cent to Glyn ([72]–[74]).