UK Supreme Court Limits Claims for Injury by Witnesses to Wrongful Death or Injury

In a recent landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court has effectively restricted the circumstances under which a person who has witnessed the wrongful death or injury of a loved one can bring a claim for injury to themselves. The case of Paul and Another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and Others [2024] UKSC 1 involved three cases where the claimants’ injury was caused by witnessing the death or injury of a close relative due to a medical condition that the defendant had negligently failed to diagnose and treat.

The majority of the court, with Lord Burrows dissenting, ruled in favor of the defendants. The court considered previous key House of Lords decisions on this issue, including McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410, Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, and Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455.

The court set down several principles, including the fact that not every event caused by negligence would give rise to a claim for damages by a secondary victim. The court emphasized that the accident or event did not have to be “horrifying” and that there was no objective scale of horror to determine eligibility for a claim.

Furthermore, the court rejected the notion of a legal test to determine whether what the claimant witnessed constituted one event or several separate events. The court also overruled previous judgments that had extended the aftermath of true accidents to a period far beyond what was originally contemplated.

The court approved a Court of Appeal decision in Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194, which established that no claim could be brought for psychiatric injury caused by a separate event removed in time from the accident.

In conclusion, the court’s decision in Paul and Another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and Others [2024] UKSC 1 clarifies the legal requirements for the recovery of damages by secondary victims who have suffered injury as a result of the death of another person. The ruling emphasizes the importance of being present at the scene, witnessing the accident, and having a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim in order to be eligible for compensation.