Philips v Whiteley [1938] 1 All ER 566 (CA)

Facts

The claimant had her ears pierced by a jeweller. The procedure was performed using the common method at the time. She later developed an infection, which led to complications. She brought a negligence claim arguing that the jeweller should have taken greater medical-style precautions, similar to those used by doctors.

The case examined whether someone performing a skilled task outside a medical setting should be judged by the same standard as a qualified medical practitioner.

---

Issue

What standard of care applies to a person exercising a particular skill?

Should the jeweller have been judged by the standard of a medical doctor?

---

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that the jeweller was not negligent. He was required to meet the standard of a reasonably competent jeweller performing ear piercing, not that of a surgeon.

---

Legal Principle

A defendant exercising a skill is judged against the standard of a reasonably competent person in that specific field. The law does not impose a higher standard than the defendant’s actual professional role requires.

This complements Bolam by clarifying that the comparison group must be correctly identified.

---

Importance

• Helps define how courts identify the relevant professional standard.

• Prevents courts from unfairly elevating standards by comparing defendants to more highly trained professionals.