Bot & Anor v Barnick & Ors [2018] EWHC 3132 (QB) (16 November 2018)

These are applications brought by D1, D2, and D3 respectively, to strike out C2’s claim [1]

C1 gave birth to a daughter 29 March 2011 [6]

Thereafter her mental health deteriorated [7]

The essence of C2’s claim is that D1, D2 and/or D3 provided negligent advice and / or incorrect information to C2, on which he relied, and which caused him to believe that C1’s delusions were or may have been based in fact, which in turn caused him to doubt the basis of his relationship with C1, and to seek to protect his children from her. It is said that this failure caused C1 and C2 to separate and caused persisting problems in the family bonds and relationships, as well as financial loss and damage. [11]

none of the defendants entered into a contract with C2 at any time in relation to his own health and welfare… [20]

…the principles are well established: the hospital and doctors treating C1 did not owe C2 any duty, personal to him, to safeguard his welfare and health and to protect him from economic loss. Accordingly, his claim in tort must be struck out… [32]

…no real prospect of C2’s causation case succeeding in light of the fact that C1 was sectioned within a very short time after the allegedly negligent advice was given. [38]

…no amendment to the pleaded case, further disclosure, or development of argument could save C2’s case. It is bound to fail at trial for reasons I have set out above. I therefore allow the applications and strike C2’s claim… [39]