header-logo header-logo

Psychiatric injury claims clarified

16 January 2024
Issue: 8055 / Categories: Legal News , Professional negligence , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
Doctors are not liable for psychiatric injuries suffered by their patients’ relatives, the Supreme Court has ruled

The justices held by a 6–1 majority, Lord Burrows dissenting, that no duty of care was owed, in three conjoined cases: Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust; Polmear and another v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust; and Purchase v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 1. Each claim concerned allegations of negligently failing to diagnose a life-threatening condition thus later causing the relatives’ psychiatric injuries arising from witnessing the patient’s death or the immediate aftermath.

Jonathan Fuggle, partner at Browne Jacobson, which advised NHS Resolution in Paul and Purchase, said: ‘For many years the law relating to claims for psychiatric harm has developed in a piecemeal way through case law that seemed to conflict.

‘The decision by the Supreme Court provides welcome clarity for lawyers and their clients.’

Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Leggatt and Lady Rose said a duty of care required both reasonable foreseeability of harm and proximity in the relationship. They found insufficient proximity existed.

They highlighted the risk that hospitals treating dying patients might begin to usher relatives out of the room to avoid potential liability. While acknowledging the impact of witnessing a relative’s death, they noted: ‘Such an experience is not an insult to health from which we expect doctors to take care to protect us but a vicissitude of life which is part of the human condition.’

Michael Mather-Lees KC, of Church Court Chambers, said: ‘The Supreme Court had to draw a line as to what is or is not a foreseeable event in the context of clinical negligence, and on potential damages for an unrelated third party.

‘While the court was right to limit the possibility of continued satellite litigation from an initial negligent act, time will tell if this was the correct place to draw the line.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Mourant—Stephen Alexander

Mourant—Stephen Alexander

Jersey litigation lead appointed to global STEP Council

mfg Solicitors—nine trainees

mfg Solicitors—nine trainees

Firm invests in future talent with new training cohort

360 Law Group—Anthony Gahan

360 Law Group—Anthony Gahan

Investment banking veteran appointed as chairman to drive global growth

NEWS
Artificial intelligence may be revolutionising the law, but its misuse could wreck cases and careers, warns Clare Arthurs of Penningtons Manches Cooper in this week's NLJ
Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre makes the case for ‘General Practice Pro Bono’—using core legal skills to deliver life-changing support, without the need for niche expertise—in this week's NLJ
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
back-to-top-scroll