Saffron Paul v The Paul Wolverhampton NHS Trust

Saffron Paul v The Paul Wolverhampton NHS Trust

The Court of Appeal is bound by Taylor v A. Novo (UK) Ltd, which precludes liability for psychiatric injury to secondary victims where the horrific event is separated in time from the original negligence. The five elements for proximity apply, but the horrific event must not be a separate event removed in time from the negligence. Therefore, none of the present claims can succeed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Saffron Paul; Claimant/respondent: Mya Paul (a child by her mother and litigation friend Balbir Kaur Paul); Defendant/appellant: The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust; Claimant/respondent: Lynette Polmear; Claimant/respondent: Mark Polmear; Defendant/appellant: Royal Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust; Claimant/appellant: Tara Purchase; Defendant/respondent: Mahmud Ahmed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (clinical Negligence) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court and County Court
Outcome
Appeals in Paul and Polmear allowed; appeal in Purchase dismissed.
Legal Topics
Psychiatric Injury, Secondary Victims, Proximity, Control Mechanisms, Clinical Negligence
Tort Law Medical Negligence Psychiatric Injury Secondary Victims Proximity Control Mechanisms Clinical Negligence

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saffron Paul

Claimant/respondent

Mya Paul (a child by her mother and litigation friend Balbir Kaur Paul)

Claimant/respondent

The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust

Defendant/appellant

Lynette Polmear

Claimant/respondent

Mark Polmear

Claimant/respondent

Royal Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust

Defendant/appellant

Tara Purchase

Claimant/appellant

Mahmud Ahmed

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (clinical Negligence) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court and County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defendant in clinical negligence can be liable for psychiatric injury to a close relative (secondary victim) of the primary victim when the horrific event is separated in time from the negligence
  2. 2 Whether the five elements (control mechanisms) for proximity in secondary victim claims apply to clinical negligence cases where the negligence and the horrific event are separated in time
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal is bound by its decision in Taylor v A. Novo (UK) Ltd

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal is bound by Taylor v A. Novo (UK) Ltd, which precludes liability for psychiatric injury to secondary victims where the horrific event is separated in time from the original negligence. The five elements for proximity apply, but the horrific event must not be a separate event removed in time from the negligence. Therefore, none of the present claims can succeed.

Court Disposition

Appeals in Paul and Polmear allowed; appeal in Purchase dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeals in Paul and Polmear allowed, claims dismissed.
  • Appeal in Purchase dismissed.