Connor v Castle Cement & Ors

Connor v Castle Cement & Ors

The claimant proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he suffered a recognised psychiatric disorder (hysterical Pseudodementia, F44.8.8 ICD 10) as a result of the defendants' admitted negligence. The court accepted the evidence of the claimant's wife and the joint psychiatric experts, finding that the psychiatric injury was genuine, actionable, and not feigned or exaggerated. Variations in presentation were not sufficient to negate the diagnosis. The preliminary issue is answered in the claimant's favour.

Parties
Claimant: George Andrew Connor; 1st Defendant: Castle Cement; 2nd Defendant: S&S Steel Fabrications Limited; 3rd Defendant: Vesuvius UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Tort/personal Injury (negligence) / Preliminary Issue Trial on Liability and Causation (psychiatric Injury)
Outcome
Claimant succeeds on the preliminary issue; actionable psychiatric injury proved.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Psychiatric Injury, Causation, Damages
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Psychiatric Injury Causation Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Andrew Connor

Claimant

Castle Cement

1st Defendant

S&S Steel Fabrications Limited

2nd Defendant

Vesuvius UK Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort/personal Injury (negligence) / Preliminary Issue Trial on Liability and Causation (psychiatric Injury)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant suffered a recognised psychiatric injury as a result of the defendants' admitted negligence
  2. 2 Whether the psychiatric injury is actionable in tort

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he suffered a recognised psychiatric disorder (hysterical Pseudodementia, F44.8.8 ICD 10) as a result of the defendants' admitted negligence. The court accepted the evidence of the claimant's wife and the joint psychiatric experts, finding that the psychiatric injury was genuine, actionable, and not feigned or exaggerated. Variations in presentation were not sufficient to negate the diagnosis. The preliminary issue is answered in the claimant's favour.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds on the preliminary issue; actionable psychiatric injury proved.

Orders

  • Declaration that the claimant suffered a recognised psychiatric injury (hysterical Pseudodementia) as a result of the defendants' negligence.
  • Quantum and prognosis to be determined at a further trial.