No duty of care owed as psychiatric injury not deemed as reasonably foreseeable (Wokingham Borough Council v Arshad)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?
• Case details

Article summary

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This case illustrates the principles to be applied when a claimant alleges that he has suffered psychiatric injury, but he is not in one of the usual categories of claimant for such claims (eg primary victims; secondary victims; employees; rescuers). Mr Arshad was a taxi driver who sought a licence from the council. He alleged he suffered a psychiatric injury from the council’s mishandling of his licence, after erroneous advice was given and his hackney carriage licence was ultimately revoked. The County Court allowed his claim. On appeal, the High Court grappled with the requirements for establishing the existence of a duty of care—in particular whether a psychiatric injury is foreseeable. Written by David Green, barrister at 12KBW.