Paul and another (Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (Respondent)
Case ID: 2022/0038
Case summary
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 appealed
Parties
Appellants
Saffron Olivia Kaur Paul
Mya Paul (a child by her LF Mrs Balbir Kaur Paul)
Respondent
Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust
Appeal
Justices
Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows, Lady Rose, Lord Richards, Lord Carloway
Hearing start date
16 May 2023
Hearing finish date
18 May 2023
| Watch hearing | ||
|---|---|---|
| 16 May 2023 | Morning session | Afternoon session |
| 17 May 2023 | Morning session | Afternoon session |
| 18 May 2023 | Morning session | Afternoon session |
Judgment details
Judgment date
11 January 2024
Neutral citation
[2024] UKSC 1
- Judgment (PDF)
- Press Summary (PDF)
- Judgment on The National Archives (HTML version)
- Press Summary on The National Archives (HTML version)
- Judgment on BAILII (HTML version)
This judgment was reuploaded on 8 July 2024 to correct a small typo in para 222, line 5. It now says "came through" instead of "though".
This judgment was reuploaded on 23 January 2024 to correct a small typo in para 240. The first line now reads "it is to be noted that".
| Watch Judgment summary | |
|---|---|
| 11 January 2024 | Judgment summary |