UK Supreme Court Ruling regarding Secondary Victims in Clinical Negligence Cases
Stephanie Prior
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Supreme Court’s Decision on Secondary Victims in Clinical Negligence Cases
The Supreme Court has today, on the 11th January 2024, upheld the Court of Appeal’s order to dismiss the claims of secondary victims in Clinical Negligence cases in the matter known as Paul & Anor v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1. Secondary victims are considered to be those who are not subject directly to potentially negligent medical treatment but are witnesses to family members suffering injury or death as a consequence of it. In the three cases at issue before the Supreme Court, all claims were by family members for psychiatric illness caused by experiencing such events.
The Law Previously
Historically, in this area it has been the case that a person is unable to make a claim for any effect that the death or injury of another person has had on them. That said, case law has developed such that witnesses to an accident resulting from negligence have been permitted to make a claim for personal injury. The landmark case in this area is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] UKHL 5, [1992] 1 AC 310, which arose from the Hillsborough disaster and specified five ‘control mechanisms’ – the criteria to be met for a successful claim by a secondary victim. Importantly, material to the Supreme Court’s decision today is the requirement for both physical and temporal proximity to the accident.
The Development and Limitations of Claims for Secondary Victims
To date, the question of whether this principle extends to cases of medical negligence has neither been addressed in legislation nor by the Supreme Court. Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, in the Court of Appeal stated that, whilst he “can quite see why secondary victims in these cases ought to be seen to be sufficiently proximate to the defendants to be allowed to recover damages for their psychiatric injury”, he was bound by the previous decision in Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194. In that case it was held that, for such a claim by a secondary victim to succeed, the event and the negligence cannot be separate in time. It is this dichotomy that prompted the Master of the Rolls to leave the decision as to whether to depart from previous case law to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling and Its Implications
By a majority of six to one, the Supreme Court held that medical professionals owe a duty of care to their patients only and that witnessing the death of a close family member is not something doctors can be expected to prevent. Additionally, it was deemed that the claimant’s loved ones had not died in an ‘accident’. The Court gave varying definitions of the term but it can be encapsulated as a “discrete event in the ordinary sense of that word, meaning something which happens at a particular time, at a particular place, in a particular way”. It was further clarified that an accident is distinct from “medical crisis” such as occurred in these cases.
In effect, this ruling signifies an end to potential claims for psychiatric illness by secondary victims in clinical negligence cases. While this may bring clarity to the legal landscape, it also raises questions regarding the broader implications for victims of clinical negligence and their families. It could be argued that limiting the scope for secondary victims to claim compensation could hinder access to justice and overlook the profound emotional toll these incidents can have on the families involved.
Broader Implications and Future Directions for Secondary Victims
While the decision has a restrictive impact on secondary victims in matters of clinical negligence, the scope for secondary victims of other accidents, such as a Road Traffic Accident, has potentially increased. The Court held that secondary victims in such circumstances no longer need to show that the incident was ‘objectively horrifying’, or that the injury suffered by the secondary victim need be caused by ‘sudden shock’. This leaves the requirements to be met as follows; presence at the time of the accident or its aftermath, witnessing the accident or its aftermath, and a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim.
Contact Osbornes Law for legal advice
In light of this development, should you continue to have queries regarding your potential claim as a secondary victim or are uncertain as to how this precedent may be applicable to you, please contact us.
Share this article
Contact
Contact the Clinical Negligence team today
For a free initial conversation call 0207 485 8811
Email us Send us an email and we’ll get back to you
Osbornes is a very respected firm in the marketplace.
They handle really complex cases very well
The clinical negligence team are knowledgeable and professional in their approach and demonstrate a high level of skill in litigation work.
Osbornes Law offers experience in obstetric and fatal claims as well as niche cauda equina cases.
Osbornes Law is an established firm which handles a breadth of complex and high-value clinical negligence matters.
Osbornes has a skilled team of solicitors advising clients on a wide range of clinical negligence matters.
Hard working, approachable, good knowledge of clinical negligence and clients’ specific conditions
A joy to work with and always 100% client focused at all times.
The clinical negligence team at Osbornes is much lauded for its ability to ‘represent the diverse range of London-based clients
“The team is very quick and efficient in responding."
"Obsbornes Law is always client-focused and works tirelessly to obtain the best outcomes for clients."
‘They are ambitious for their clients and expect high standards from all who work with them.’
"Osbornes somehow combine the accessibility of a local firm, with the professional standards of a national or city outfit."
"Osbornes, is described as having ‘superb judgement and a medical knowledge that is second to none."
They are an excellent firm who achieve fantastic outcomes for their clients. They are also very prominent in injuries to those travelling to or from Europe. Multiple languages are spoken by the team.
Stephanie Prior is a first-rate clinical negligence specialist whose industry, great experience and medical background put her in an exceptional class.
This firm is responsive and efficient. Their rapidity in dealing with complications or hiccups is excellent.
Really great clinical negligence practice, staffed by experienced practitioners who know how NHS Trusts work. They also build great rapport with clients.’
Stephanie has developed a particularly strong reputation for her handling of birth injury claims, as well as cases concerning surgical negligence and delays in surgery.
"An excellent firm which achieves fantastic outcomes for clients."
"Stephanie Prior takes on complex cases and gets excellent results. She has a background in medicine which serves her clients well and is a realistic but tough litigator."
"Stephanie Prior is hugely dedicated, adored by her clients, tenacious, efficient and extremely knowledgeable."
"Stephanie Prior is very good with troubled clients and is easily able to make them feel at ease."
"Stephanie shows sensitivity and deals with things in an understanding way."
Osbornes provides a very intimate and personal client service which is increasingly rare in this sector.
The lawyers in the team are highly experienced and will drive cases very hard on behalf of their clients.
"Stephanie Prior has a realistic attitude to the complexities of the cases. She wins the trust of her clients and goes the extra mile to ensure they get the best outcomes."
"Stephanie Prior... manages a varied caseload, including obstetric claims, child and adult brain injury cases and fatal and non-fatal spinal cord injury cases."
"Stephanie is experienced, knowledgeable of all aspects of clinical negligence work, and strategic in running cases."
"An exceptional outfit. They take on difficult cases, fight hard and win."
"The team were extremely professional in putting my needs first. There was a joined-up approach to catering for the client, and all lawyers involved were briefed and constructive."
Stephanie Prior is always very professional and kind. Highly recommended.
Quite simply excellent, with a highly competent and well-rounded team. They understand complex medical litigation and have been our lifesavers, and we will always owe them our immense gratitude.
More Clinical Negligence InsightsVIEW ALL
1.10.2024Women are “under-treated” for Cardiovascular Disease
Women are under-recognised and under-treated when it comes to cardiovascular disease Academics investigating the current state of the NHS have...
Read more- 19.9.2024
Vulnerable Patients at Risk due to Online GP...
Vulnerable patients ‘locked out’ of GP practices due to online only system Being unable able to get a GP appointment...
Read more - 19.9.2024
Damning report highlights key failings in maternity care...
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has recently carried out a national review of 131 maternity inspections between 2022 and 2024, finding that failures...
Read more - 10.9.2024
Why are Suicidal Behaviours and Tendencies Overwhelmingly Ignored?
Social media can often glamorise the idea of suicide, misleading young impressionable minds to romanticise suicide and encourage suicidal thoughts...
Read more 
30.7.2024Women in ICU Face High Risk of Stillbirth
High stillbirth rates and repeated mistakes Researchers at the University of Edinburgh carried out numerous studies regarding pregnant women being...
Read more- 30.7.2024
What Is the Role Of a Physician Associate?
What does the Position of Physician Associate Mean for the NHS? There are many different jobs within the NHS, each...
Read more 
13.5.2024Birth Trauma Inquiry: Is poor maternity care the...
Call for overhaul of maternity and post-natal care An All-Party Parliamentary Group has called for a huge overhaul of maternity...
Read more- 11.1.2024
New UK Supreme Court Ruling regarding Secondary Victims...
The Supreme Court has today, on the 11th January 2024, upheld the Court of Appeal’s order to dismiss the claims...
Read more 
12.12.2023NHS Compensation Payouts Guide
What Are NHS Compensation Payouts? In the UK, the National Health Service delivers the vast majority of healthcare services. When...
Read more- 31.8.2023
The impact of record NHS waiting lists
7.47 million people waiting for NHS treatment England’s NHS waiting lists have hit the highest number since 2007, reaching a record...
Read more - 31.8.2023
Hyponatraemia – Symptoms, Causes & Negligence
What is hyponatraemia? Hyponatraemia is a condition where sodium levels fall below a certain level, which can be dangerous. All...
Read more - 10.8.2023
Ambulance Delays Affecting Rapid Patient Treatment
Failure to Meet Ambulance Response Targets In 2017, the Secretary of State for Health accepted the new ambulance performance standards recommended...
Read more 
26.7.2023Private Healthcare Negligence
Can you claim medical negligence against a private hospital? Yes – it can be a little more complicated than bringing a...
Read more- 9.6.2023
Early Notification Scheme – is it helping or failing...
What is the Early Notification Scheme? The NHS Early Notification Scheme (“ENS”) has reached its sixth anniversary. Established in April 2017,...
Read more - 5.6.2023
Are pharmacy closures putting patients at risk?
It has been reported in the press that chemist closures will have an impact on patients living in deprived or...
Read more - 23.3.2023
Private Pregnancy Scans and Substandard Care
In the news, it has been reported that private clinics that offer pregnancy scans to women are not meeting the...
Read more - 14.2.2023
The risk of extravasation injuries during iron infusion...
Many patients with low iron, particularly during pregnancy or postnatally, may be advised they need an iron infusion such as...
Read more - 9.11.2022
Delayed transfer to Accident & Emergency causing harm
The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB) has identified that patients may come at risk of harm whilst waiting in ambulances...
Read more - 9.11.2022
Breast cancer screening mammograms and negligence
Breast cancer screening has improved significantly in the UK due to research bettering the understanding of this terrible disease, which...
Read more - 28.9.2022
Women more likely to have symptoms ignored by...
An increasing number of women in the UK feel brushed off by GPs when presenting with real symptoms, with many...
Read more 
21.9.2022Are maternity services safe? – Part 2
In April last year I wrote a piece about government setting up a taskforce to look into why there are...
Read more
8.9.2022Poor interpretation of CTG can result in stillbirth...
Poor interpretation of a Cardiotocograph, more commonly known as a CTG, is a leading cause of stillbirth and brain injuries...
Read more- 9.8.2022
New interactive rating tool reveals NHS wait times...
Amidst record-breaking heatwaves and a lengthy patient waiting list due to COVID backlogs, it is not surprising that this summer...
Read more - 14.7.2022
Insulin overdose in hospitals due to limited staff...
A century ago, insulin was first used to treat a 14-year-old boy dying of type 1 diabetes. A hundred years later,...
Read more
