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.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Third party costs—Court of Appeal confirms stay pending detailed assessment is case management decision (Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a judge at first instance to stay an application for a third-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 until after the conclusion of the detailed assessment of the underlying bill of costs. Dismissing Nigeria’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that there is no presumption that a third-party costs application should be determined before a detailed assessment. The question is purely one of case management, to be decided in accordance with the interests of justice and the overriding objective. The decision, being within the scope of discretion allowed a judge, was not amenable to appeal; that a different judge would have reached a different conclusion was not in point. Where there is a real question whether any further sum will be payable following assessment (particularly where a substantial payment on account has already been made and costs are to be assessed on the standard basis), it is legitimate to stay the third party application to avoid wasting court resources on what may prove to be a pointless satellite exercise. Of general and at least equal significance to costs practitioners were the Court of Appeal’s strong comments (obiter dicta in strict terms) deprecating disproportionate detailed assessment processes and endorsing the use of sampling as a case management tool in cases involving very significant bills of legal costs. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents