Secondary victim meaning

Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and others [2022] EWCA Civ 12 What are the practical implications of this case? Before Paul, pinning down when a claimant could recover for a shocking event was problematic, as two Court of Appeal authorities—Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 1792 and Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194—were difficult to reconcile. In Paul, the Court of Appeal determined that Taylor is controlling and that it requires the shocking event to be linked to the defendant’s breach of duty. That stance produces such manifest unfairness that the Court of Appeal has indicated it is minded to grant permission to appeal. Consequently, any claimant advancing a secondary victim claim affected by Paul would be well advised to defer issuing their...

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—9 April 2026 In this issue: Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments Road traffic accidents Psychiatric and occupational stress Public authorities and the state Product liability Scottish claims Other PI and Clinical Negligence news New content LexisNexis® Quantum Portal LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts LexisNexis® Webinars Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments Eighteenth edition of the Judicial College Guidelines is published The 18th edition of the Judicial College Guidelines has now been released, following the 17th in 2024. It remains the primary reference for practitioners and courts when assessing general damages in personal injury and clinical negligence claims. The figures have been adjusted for inflation, by reference to the Retail Prices Index as at August 2025. See: LNB News 09/04/2026 4. The latest chapter in Mazur—prayers answered and questions unanswered In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys...

In this issue: Psychiatric and occupational stress Road traffic accidents Accidents abroad Clinical negligence Case management Costs and funding Other news LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts LexisNexis® Webinars Useful information Psychiatric and occupational stress Court of Appeal grants damages to a child secondary victim from the historic Hyde Park bombing In Young v Downey [2025] EWCA Civ 177, the claim traces back to the 1982 Hyde Park bombing. The defendant, although never convicted, has been found in other courts to have been involved as a perpetrator. The claimant is the daughter of a bombing victim. She was in Hyde Park at the time, heard the blast, and witnessed appalling injuries in the aftermath. She later learnt that her father had been killed. As a consequence, she suffered substantial secondary psychiatric harm. Yet she was only four at the time, with a child’s comprehension...

Pre-existing legal relationships Psychiatric harm may arise where a claimant and defendant are already linked by a legal relationship. In some settings, the character of that connection places a duty on the defendant to act with reasonable care so as not to cause psychiatric injury. Illustrations include: Occupational stress claims: perhaps the clearest instances of a pre-existing obligation not to inflict ‘pure’ psychiatric damage. See Practice Notes: Occupational stress—introduction and Occupational stress—establishing liability. Health authority cases involving the communication of upsetting information: here, the parties’ established relationship may mean it is foreseeable that negligent misstatements, or even an unduly insensitive delivery of accurate facts, could result in psychiatric injury. Examples include: a claimant developing post-traumatic stress disorder after being wrongly informed that his baby had died (noting that the judge’s analysis in that matter was that recovery was available as a primary victim) a health authority notifying patients that they had been treated by healthcare workers who...

PI & Clinical negligence horizon scanner—July 2025 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. It summarises the principal legal developments relevant to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as at July 2025. For developments predating this horizon scanner, see PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning and key cases—overview. Key PI and clinical negligence developments The personal injury discount rate—a review In late 2024, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, revealed the outcome of her five‑month review of the discount rate, initiated in July 2024. One month after the new +0.5% discount rate took effect, Thea Wilson (barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk) assesses its impact on cases, the responses from claimant and defendant representatives, and the consequences of the change for legal practitioners. See News Analysis: The personal injury discount rate—a review. MoJ announces reduction in CFO’s interest rates The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced lower interest rates for the Courts Funds Office’s (CFO) special and basic accounts...

The development of the law Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police has traditionally stood as the principal authority on secondary victim claims. Subsequent jurisprudence after Alcock evolved in a piecemeal way, with decisions that were sometimes inconsistent. The Supreme Court's ruling in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust has introduced several revisions and offered much-needed certainty for practitioners. Grasping the landscape both before and after Paul matters because the underlying principles have been refined and clarified, though not every element has altered. Accordingly, this Practice Note is arranged into pre-Paul and post-Paul parts. The amendments attributable to Paul are clearly signposted within this Practice Note. For deeper commentary on the judgment, consult News Analysis: Landmark Supreme Court decision on secondary victims (Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust). It must be appreciated that claims by secondary victims form an exception to the general rule that, at common law, one individual has no legal entitlement to compensation concerning the physical integrity or condition of another. As with any exception,...