Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
of consistency are finally appearing in an area of practice bedevilled by elusive concepts and contradictory decisions. In his guest post for the LexisNexis DR blog, Charles Bagot, personal injury barrister at Hardwicke, considers when can a relative
who is shocked by the sight of a horrific incident (or its aftermath) involving a loved-one recover damages for psychiatric injury and analyses recent case law relating to secondary victim claims.
Collectively these decisions bring some logic to this policy-driven area, building on the decision in the Taylor v Novo (UK) Ltd.  QB 150 appeal (decision in 2013). The law has now come full circle and successful secondary victim claims are
to be viewed as exceptional rather than the norm.
As long ago as 1999, one of the most senior Judges spoke in trenchant terms of the unsatisfactory cul-de-sac down which the law in this area had gone.
“It seems to me that in this area of the law, the search for principle was called off in Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire  1 A.C. 310. No one can pretend that the existing law, which your Lordships have to accept, is founded
observed Lord Hoffman in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire  2 AC 455 (the police officers’ claims arising out of the Hillsborough disaster).
Taylor v Novo was the first secondary victim claim to go to the Court of Appeal for 10 years. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, looked again at secondary victim claims and reiterated that strict control mechanisms set out by the House of Lords
in the post-Hillsborough disaster decision of Alcock, in 1992, should be applied by Judges to limit the ambit of permissible secondary victim claims unless Parliament intervened to change the law.
Since December 2014 there have been a quintet of decisions arising from a variety of tragic circumstances:
Whilst factually varied, ranging from a death in the womb (Wild), to a fatal workplace accident (Berisha) and clinical negligence (Brock; Shorter; and Ronayne), there has been a consistent theme of going back to first
principles and a much stricter approach to secondary victims.
While four of these decisions are clinical negligence related, the same principles apply in cases arising from accidents. There are no special rules or exceptions.
The first and the last of these decisions demonstrate a tougher line being taken by the Courts.
Wild v Southend Hospital NHS Trust was the first application of Taylor v. Novo in the clinical negligence context.
The Claimant, Mr Wild, was present with his wife at hospital on their baby’s due date when it was discovered their unborn son had died in the womb (due to the hospital’s negligence) causing Mr Wild psychiatric injury.
The Judge dismissed the claim as the Claimant did not satisfy the control mechanisms in Alcock and applying Taylor v Novo. It was not enough for him to have been witness to the manifestation of the consequences of the Defendant’s negligence,
i.e. the retrospective discovery that the baby had died in the womb. That does not equate with actually witnessing horrific events leading to a death or serious injury. Also there was no sudden shocking event as the law requires. Here, there was a
gradual realisation that medical staff could not find the baby’s heartbeat and mounting panic for the father.
The decision in Liverpool Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne is significant because it arguably tightens the strict control mechanisms. This will be welcomed by NHS Trusts and liability insurers, who have seen a rise in
secondary victim claims.
Mr Ronayne sustained a psychiatric injury from the shock of his seriously ill wife’s appearance in hospital. He described her looking like ‘the Michelin Man’.
The judgment clarifies and adds to what is necessary to establish the control mechanism of a ‘shocking event’ that it must be (a) exceptional; and (b) sudden; and (c) horrifying. Unquestionably, this will be a high threshold for Claimants.
The Appeal Judges accepted the appalling sequence of events which caused profound distress to Mr Ronayne, but held unanimously that the circumstances fell “far short” of those recognised by the law in previous cases as founding secondary
victim liability. This was not a horrifying event by objective standards as the appearance of Mr Ronayne’s wife was as would ordinarily be expected of a person in hospital in the circumstances in which she found herself. It was not exceptional.
Demonstrating that a shocking event is ‘exceptional’ will be a standard rarely met. Fewer cases will be brought in future and many current cases will fail. Secondary victim law has come full circle so that successful claims will be the exception
rather than the rule.
Charles Bagot is a specialist personal injury and clinical negligence Barrister at Hardwicke. He was Counsel for the successful parties in Taylor v. Novo; Wild v. Southend NHS Trust; and Berisha v. Stone Superstore.
0330 161 1234