Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (with 2 other cases) [2024] UKSC 1

Paul and another (Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (Respondent) Case ID: UKSC/2022/0038 https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uks... Polmear and another (Appellants) v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (Respondent) Case ID: UKSC/2022/0044 https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uks... Purchase (Appellant) v Ahmed (Respondent) Case ID: UKSC/2022/0049 https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uks... Judgment date: 11 January 2024 Neutral citation: [2024] UKSC 1 On appeal from: [2022] EWCA Civ 12 Issue: Can an individual make a claim for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing the death or other horrifying event of a close relative as a result of earlier clinical negligence? Facts: These are three conjoined appeals. Each appeal relates to a claim by an Appellant for psychiatric illness caused by viewing a traumatic event which was caused by a Respondent's negligence. In each case, the Appellant witnessed or attended shortly after a death caused by the Respondent's negligence. Following existing law, the Paul and Purchase claims were dismissed by the High Court and County Court respectively, with permission given to appeal. Following Paul, an application to dismiss the claim in Polmear was rejected and permission given to appeal. The cases were conjoined and heard together before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found for the Appellants in Paul and Polmear, and for the Respondent in Purchase. All three cases come before the Supreme Court as a conjoined appeal. Judgment: By a majority of six to one, the Supreme Court dismisses the appeals. The court concludes that, while doctors owe a duty of care to protect the health of their patients, they do not owe a duty of care to members of the patient’s close family to protect them against the risk of illness from the experience of witnessing the death or medical crisis of their relative from a condition which the doctor has negligently failed to diagnose or treat. The Court of Appeal’s order dismissing the claims is, therefore, upheld. Lord Leggatt and Lady Rose, with whom Lord Briggs, Lord Sales and Lord Richards agree, give the leading judgment. Lord Carloway, with whom Lord Sales agrees, gives a judgment concurring with Lord Leggatt and Lady Rose. Lord Burrows gives a dissenting judgment. More information is available on our website