Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024]

Paul and Another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1 is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court which clarified and significantly limited the scope of secondary victim claims in the context of medical negligence. The Court held by a majority of six to one that medical professionals do not owe a duty of care to the relatives of a patient to protect them from psychiatric harm caused by witnessing that patient’s death, even if the death resulted from negligent medical care. The judgment reaffirmed that psychiatric injury should be treated no differently from physical injury under tort law, and it reinforced the stringent conditions required for secondary victim claims.

The appeal involved three conjoined cases, each concerning relatives who developed psychiatric illness after witnessing or encountering the traumatic aftermath of a loved one’s death allegedly caused by negligent medical treatment. In the principal case, Paul, the claimants were two young daughters who witnessed their father collapse and die from cardiac arrest. The alleged negligence occurred 14 months prior, when doctors failed to diagnose his coronary artery disease. In Polmear, parents witnessed their child die from an undiagnosed pulmonary condition. In Purchase, a mother found her daughter dead after a negligent failure to treat pneumonia. In all three cases, the claimants developed severe psychiatric conditions, including PTSD and depression, and sought damages as secondary victims.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that for a claim to succeed, there must be a close and proximate connection between the claimant and the relevant event, typically the traumatic event which directly results from the defendant’s negligence. In Paul, the long interval between the negligent act and the father’s death meant the event was not sufficiently proximate. The Court held that to impose liability on doctors for harm suffered by family members witnessing a patient’s death would extend the duty of care beyond what society considers reasonable. As Lord Leggatt and Lady Rose put it, the role of healthcare professionals does not extend to shielding relatives from witnessing death or disease in the patient.

In reaching its decision, the Court applied and reinforced the control mechanisms originally established in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, a case concerning psychiatric harm caused by the Hillsborough disaster. These mechanisms include four main proximity criteria: (1) a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim, (2) direct perception of the event or its immediate aftermath, (3) close physical proximity in time and space to the event, and (4) the development of a recognised psychiatric illness. The Court also confirmed that foreseeability of harm remains a necessary requirement, but is not sufficient alone to establish liability.

Lord Burrows dissented, arguing that the relevant event should be understood as the death itself, rather than the earlier medical act or omission. He reasoned that the requirements of proximity and foreseeability were satisfied in these cases and that a more compassionate, flexible approach was needed. In his view, the emotional trauma of witnessing a death caused by medical negligence was no less significant than that caused by other types of accidents, and the law should recognise this.

The judgment has significant implications. It closes the door to many potential secondary victim claims in medical negligence cases, particularly where relatives witness a patient’s death or its aftermath but were not present at the time of the alleged negligent act. It also reflects a reluctance by the courts to expand liability in this already restrictive area of tort law. The Court explicitly declined to introduce a new category of special duty of care in clinical settings, even in circumstances where death could have been avoided through earlier intervention.

In summary, this case reinforces the restrictive application of psychiatric injury claims by secondary victims, especially in cases of medical negligence. While the judgment affirms the principles established in Alcock, it also narrows their application in clinical contexts, confirming that witnessing a relative’s death, even one caused by negligent medical care, does not by itself create a duty of care.

Back to blog
UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

Get fully prepared for SQE1 without breaking the bank. Access cost-effective SQE study manuals and 2000 practice questions developed by UOLLB, edited by lawyers, and published by UOL Press.

Turbocharge SQE Performance
UOL Case Bank

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain access to over 2,200 essential case summaries. UOL Case Bank is approved by UOL School of Law and is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Join students and legal professionals from Legal 500 firms, top universities and international organisations who trust UOLLB

Council of Europe
Crown Prosecution Service
Ministry of Defence
Baker Mckenzie
Linklaters
Atsumi & Sakai
Yale University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan
INSEAD
University of London
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Arizona State University
McGill University
Toronto Metropolitan University
University of Hong Kong (HKU)
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST)
University of Buckingham
Robert Gordon University
ESSEC Business School
University of Puerto Rico

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Skills

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.