J & J FRANKS LIMITED v MURRAY SHOTTER (2) MICHAEL BYERS (IN PARTNERSHIP T/A SHOTTER & BYERS EQUINE VETERINARY SERVICES)

In veterinary negligence claims, the standard is that of a reasonably competent veterinary practitioner providing the relevant specialist care. A practice is not protected merely because some professional opinion supports it. The court must assess whether that opinion is responsible and capable of withstanding logical analysis.

Where an infection presents with acute lameness, severe pain, localised swelling and blood results suggestive of infection, failure to diagnose or consider infection may breach the standard of care. A tight, restrictive bandage may likewise be negligent where rapidly developing swelling makes it unsuitable and risks impairing circulation or concealing deterioration.

Causation remains a balance-of-probabilities inquiry applying the ordinary “but for” test. Evidence that treatment would probably have succeeded must address the treatment actually alleged to have been required.

The claimant, the owner of a racehorse, claimed damages from the defendants, a veterinary partnership, for the negligent diagnosis and treatment of focal peritarsal infection in the horse’s hind leg. The defendants admitted that antibiotics had been administered too late and that required clinical observations had not been taken.

The remaining issues concerned failure to reconsider a traumatic diagnosis, failure to diagnose or consider bacterial infection, application of a tight bandage, and whether earlier antibiotics without the bandage would probably have saved the horse. The court also considered the horse’s likely value and racing performance if it had survived.

1. Breach of duty. The applicable standard was that of a reasonably competent equine veterinary surgeon providing care to a thoroughbred racehorse. Applying Bolam and Bolitho, the court found that the presentation by Saturday morning required a primary diagnosis of suspected localised infection of the hock, or at least a differential diagnosis of bacterial infection. The relevant features included acute lameness, severe pain, localised swelling, absence of bony injury or other identified cause, and raised inflammatory blood results.
2. The treating vet had negligently fixed on trauma and failed to reconsider that diagnosis after receiving the blood results. She also failed to reach a primary or differential diagnosis of infection and delayed antibiotics. Those failures were admitted or established on the evidence.
3. The long, tight bandage was itself negligent. The literature supported bandaging only as an ancillary treatment for generalised cellulitis, ordinarily alongside antibiotics and after acute swelling had plateaued. It did not support tight bandaging as an initial treatment for a localised infection with rapidly increasing swelling. The bandage risked impairing lymphatic or venous drainage and concealed the increasing swelling. It was not a treatment that an equine vet acting with reasonable care and skill could have selected.
4. Causation. Applying the ordinary “but for” test on the balance of probabilities, the relevant hypothetical was earlier administration of penicillin and gentamicin without the bandage. Those antibiotics were resistant to the infecting organism and would not probably have eliminated it. The evidence did not establish that removing the bandage alone would have prevented progression to generalised cellulitis, particularly because forced walking was not an alleged breach and could not be included in the hypothetical.
5. The claimant therefore established breach of duty but not causation of the horse’s death or consequential loss. The claim was dismissed. The court made alternative findings that, even if the horse had survived, it would probably not have returned to its pre-infection performance.