Psychiatric and occupational stress

Psychiatric injury—recognised psychiatric illnesses

It is common for accident victims to suffer considerable distress as a result of their accident or injury, particularly if the accident itself was very serious or if a fatality occurred. Generally speaking, such distress will not entitle them to bring a claim for psychiatric injury as a separate head of loss unless the claimant can prove that they have developed a recognised psychiatric injury or illness. Depression and post-traumatic stress disorder are common examples of psychiatric illnesses which can lead to successful claims if their cause can be linked to the index event.

If you are acting for the claimant, then you will not want to commission expert evidence unless you have good reason to suppose that some psychiatric injury has been sustained, as the cost of a report that is ultimately not relied on is unlikely to be recoverable at the conclusion of the case. Where a claimant has suffered physical injury and has also experienced extreme anxiety, distress or similar, the court is likely to take that into account as an aggravating factor in calculating the appropriate award for

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—4 April 2025

Dispute Resolution analysis: The minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) meeting of 4 April 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including open justice and access to court documents, the replacement of CPR PD 51O (e-working pilot), amendments to CPR 82 concerning closed material procedures, updates from the Lacuna Sub-Committee on Beddoe applications, judicial review reforms for nationally significant infrastructure projects and the future of paper determination in small claims.

Minutes of the OPR Committee meeting—14 April 2025

The minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) meeting of 14 April 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building and via video conference) cover a number of issues including Ministry of Justice policy updates, digital tools for Private Family Law, progress on the statutory instrument, the Inclusion Framework, the Pre-Action Model and updates from sub-committees including the Property and Possession Working Group.

Materiality is still material (Butler v Ward)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The court refused a summary judgment application by the defendant, which sought judgment on the basis that a claim for breach of duty to warn a clinical patient of risks could be decided in reference to a reasonable body of medical opinion without a need to consider evidence from (inter alia) the claimant. The court held that evidence from the claimant was necessary to determine whether the risk in question was material, and that the rule in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board in respect of consent to medical risks had not been altered by the judgment in McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board. In particular, the Bolam test did not apply to the duty to warn a patient of material risks, even if it would apply to the duty to advise a patient as to alternative procedures. The court also struck out a sections of a schedule of loss which claimed substantial sums, in the region of £2.5m for loss of earnings, but which disclosed no basis for claiming damages in that amount. Written by Thomas Mallon, barrister at Henderson Chambers.

Exclusive jurisdiction clause in settlement agreement takes precedence over prior arbitration clause, rules English Court (Destin Trading Inc v Saipem SA)

Arbitration analysis: The High Court dismissed an application to stay court proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The court held that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English court in a later settlement agreement superseded earlier arbitration clauses in prior contracts. This decision confirms that when parties conclusively settle prior disputes in a new agreement, jurisdiction clauses in the settlement agreement can displace earlier dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly if the new clause is broadly framed. Litigation and arbitration practitioners alike should carefully consider the implications of dispute resolution clauses in settlement agreements, especially where prior contracts contain arbitration clauses. Written by Min Li, Partner at Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP and Patrick Chong, associate at Reed Smtih Richards Butler LLP.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News