The duty of care owed by a GP to a patient's spouse must be articulated with reference to the particular breach and its consequences, not at a high level of abstraction. Expert evidence is generally not admissible to establish foreseeability of psychiatric injury, but may be relevant where the defendant is a medical practitioner. Expert psychiatric evidence may be rejected where it is based on a history that is false or misleading in material respects. The question whether loss of chance claims can extend to third parties in psychiatric injury cases was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.