AB v Tameside & Glossop Health Authority [1996] EWCA Civ 938

Facts:

  • C argued that the choice of the telephone as a means of alerting and reassuring people, who had received treatment from a health worker later found to be HIV+ was not correct.


Ratio:

  • There was no breach of a duty to care, even though some people called had suffered distress.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] AC 645

Revill v Newbery [1996] QB 567

‘The rise of the judicial use of proportionality has given too much power to judges’. Discuss with reference to relevant cases.