The High Court allowed a veterinary surgeon’s appeal and discharged a Circuit Court order in a case over a horse’s pre-purchase examination. Mr Justice Meenan found that the plaintiff had not established that spinal abnormalities seen on X-rays caused the horse’s injuries and later death.
The plaintiff, Philipa Grahame Knowles, had intended to buy Brockagh Rock for eventing. She asked the defendant, John Halley, practising and trading as Byrne and Halley Veterinary Surgeons, to examine the horse, including taking X-rays of its back. The examination took place in January 2013. The certificate said the X-rays showed no obvious abnormalities likely to affect performance, and the plaintiff bought the horse.
Brockagh Rock later developed problems and was considered unsafe to ride. The plaintiff’s case was that abnormalities visible on the January X-rays should have been identified and disclosed, and that she would not have bought the horse if she had been told about them. She claimed damages for negligence and breach of contract. Damages had been agreed at €23,280.06.
A veterinary surgeon called by the plaintiff, Chris Rea, examined Brockagh Rock in July 2013 and later reviewed X-rays. He said spinal changes were present on the January images. But the judge found that Rea’s evidence did not establish a causal link between those images and his clinical findings. The defendant’s expert, Dr Sue Dyson, considered it highly unlikely that the horse’s pain was caused by the closeness of the spinal processes.
The judge concluded that the abnormalities on the January X-rays did not cause the injuries that led to the horse being put down. Without that link, the plaintiff’s action could not succeed.
The court also addressed whether the examination fell below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon of equal experience and qualifications. Rea regarded the abnormalities as mild and would have given them a grade of one on the Zimmerman scale. Dyson assessed them as within the normal range, at grade zero. The judge treated the difference as an honest difference of opinion that fell short of negligence or breach of duty. He preferred Dyson’s evidence where there was any material difference and found that Halley was neither negligent nor in breach of contract.
The High Court therefore allowed the defendant’s appeal and discharged the Circuit Court’s order. The judgment does not state that the appeal court made a separate damages award.