Liability for psychiatric injury is dependent in part on the nature of the injuries suffered and the manner in which they were sustained. Classifying the victim Where a claimant suffers both physical and psychiatric injury (even if the physical injury was very minor), they will be entitled to recover damages in the usual way subject to issues of causation etc. There will in such a case be no need to prove the foreseeability of the psychiatric injury if the physical injury was itself foreseeable. The complexity arises where a claimant has suffered psychiatric injury but is physically unharmed. In cases where claimants have suffered ‘pure’ psychiatric injury as a result of an accident or event, the law draws a distinction between: • primary victims—see below • secondary victims—see below Primary victims Primary victims are directly involved in the event and usually, but not necessarily, have physical injuries as well as psychiatric injuries. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Psychiatric injury—primary victims. Establishing liability—common law To establish liability at common law a primary victim

Pre-existing legal relationships Sometimes psychiatric injury will occur in circumstances where there is a pre-existing legal relationship between the claimant and the defendant. There will be occasions when the nature of that relationship is such that it imposes a duty on the defendant to take reasonable care not to inflict psychiatric injury. For example: • occupational stress cases: these provide perhaps the most obvious examples of the operation of a pre-existing legal duty not to cause ‘pure’ psychiatric harm. See Practice Notes: Occupational stress claims—breach, causation and apportionment and Occupational stress claims—liability and foreseeability • health authority cases in which there is a liability for communication of distressing news: in such cases there is an established relationship between the parties. It may be foreseeable that the negligent provision of inaccurate information, or even insensitive communication of accurate information, might cause psychiatric injury. For example: ◦ a claimant suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after being told, wrongly, that his baby had died (it is noteworthy, though, that the judge’s reasoning in this case was that the claimant was

Defining the primary victim A primary victim is a claimant who was directly involved as a participant in the incident that caused their psychiatric injury. Classes of primary victim Lord Oliver in Alcock v Chief Constable South Yorkshire provided three examples of claimants who he would classify as primary victims: Direct involvement The claimant was within the actual area of physical danger when the accident occurred or reasonably believed at the time that they were in danger. Rescue The House of Lords in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police clarified that rescuers are not a special category of primary victim. If the claimant was a rescuer who went to the aid of others involved in an accident, they will only be defined as a primary victim if they were, or reasonably believed themselves to be, in danger. If a rescuer does not meet this test, then they will be classified as a secondary victim and will therefore need to satisfy the control mechanisms before they can recover damages for psychiatric injury.

The development of the law The case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police has long been the lead authority for claims made by secondary victims. The law developed after Alcock, often with inconsistent judgments. The Supreme Court in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust brought about a number of changes to the law and much-needed clarity for practitioners. It is important to understand the position both prior to and post the case of Paul as there has been refinement and clarification of the principles, although not every aspect has been changed. This Practice Note is therefore split into pre-Paul and post-Paul sections. The changes made by Paul are explicitly highlighted in the Practice Note. For further analysis of the case, see News Analysis: Landmark Supreme Court decision on secondary victims (Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust). It is crucial to understand that secondary victim claims constitute an exception to the general rule that at common law one person has no legal right of redress (compensation) in connection with the physical well-being

This case tracker reviews the case law which has been decided since the lead case of Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police in 1991. Subsequent case law developed the concept of secondary victims and explored the extent that courts would allow personal injury claims on behalf of secondary victims. However, the decisions were inconsistent, causing confusion. The landmark Supreme Court judgment in the case of Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust has now clarified the law after considering in detail the previous case law that had developed and is authority on the area. Some cases were expressly stated to have been wrongly decided, others were stated to be correctly decided but for the wrong reasons and these have been flagged. It remains to be seen how the case law develops in relation to accidents in a clinical negligence context. A secondary victim is someone who has suffered psychiatric injury not by being directly involved in an accident but by witnessing it or its immediate aftermath. The Supreme Court case of Paul v Royal

The National Crime Agency (NCA) has revealed that a father and son duo have been charged as part of an investigation into the importation of the new psychoactive drug kratom. The NCA worked in collaboration with Police Scotland on the investigation. Kratom is a controlled substance under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, traditionally grown in south-east Asia and used as a stimulant with opioid-like properties. The two men, aged 60 and 38, were charged with importation, possession with intent to supply and offering for supply the drug. They have both been released pending a summons to appear before court on a future date.

Psychology of disputes This Practice Note is written from a trust and estates lawyers perspective, not a psychologists. Common triggers of disputes Most disputes arise from a trigger situation—a change in circumstances whereby a family member(s) realises their expectations are not being met by the reality of the situation. Death of the family matriarch or patriarch A common trigger situation is the death of the family matriarch or patriarch—the person who had an esteemed position within the family and accordingly controlled significant personal wealth. When the expectations of certain family members are not matched by the reality of the situation litigation may ensue. For example, perhaps the deceased’s Will prefers one child rather than others, or children of a previous relationship over a subsequent spouse. Where assets are left on trust, beneficiaries (who may be of a mature age themselves) may not like the controlled given to the trustees and where

See Plutonium.

The Public Accounts Committee has expressed ongoing concerns regarding the Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) use of machine learning to detect benefit fraud. The committee highlights potential negative impacts on protected groups and vulnerable claimants, citing risks of perpetuating human biases and system errors affecting legitimate claims. While the DWP has conducted a fairness impact assessment, it has not published the results. The committee recommends that the DWP share the results of its 2024 fairness impact assessment to provide reassurance that the use of machine learning is not resulting in unfair treatment of claimants.

The House of Commons' Committee of Public Accounts has published its 34th Report of Session 2023-24 with recommendations to the government relating to asylum accommodation and the UK-Rwanda partnership.

The Committee of Public Accounts published a report examining the Department for Education's (DfE) £9.2bn annual spending on disadvantaged children. The report found that while the attainment gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils has narrowed slightly, progress remains slow. Key concerns included a 3% real-terms reduction in pupil premium funding since 2018-2019, 47% of schools using this funding to plug budget gaps, and over 90% of disadvantage funding lacking ring-fencing. The Committee made six recommendations including setting clear progress targets and improving spending oversight.

The Public Accounts Committee (Committee) inquiry into the Civil Service Pension Scheme (CSPS) has published a report highlighting concerns about the management of the CSPS, warning of declining service standards, weak oversight, and risks surrounding Capita’s upcoming takeover from current administrator MyCSP in December 2025. The Committee’s latest report found deep-rooted operational failings, long delays for pension members, and uncertainty over whether the Cabinet Office can ensure a smooth transition of services. The Committee’s findings underscore the risks inherent in outsourcing core pension administration and the need for stronger governance and oversight mechanisms. It has called on the Cabinet Office to demonstrate how it will safeguard service quality, protect member interests, and ensure continuity as Capita prepares to take control of one of the largest public sector pension schemes in the UK.