Psychiatric Injury in UK Law
-
McLoughlin v O'Brian
“
Yet an anxiety neurosis or a reactive depression may be recognisable psychiatric illnesses, with or without psychosomatic symptoms. So, the first hurdle which a plaintiff claiming damages of the kind in question must surmount is to establish that he is suffering, not merely grief, distress or any other normal emotion, but a positive psychiatric illness.
-
Page v Smith
“
First, physical illness or injury not brought about by a chain of demonstrable physical events but by mental or emotional stresses i.e. by a psychiatric route. In this case, the end product is a physical condition although it has been brought about by a process which is not demonstrably a physical one but lies in the mental or nervous system. The second form is psychiatric illness itself which is brought about by mental or emotional stresses i.e. by a psychiatric route.
But it is the same test in both cases, with different applications. There is no justification for regarding physical and psychiatric injury as different "kinds" of injury. Once it is established that the defendant is under a duty of care to avoid causing personal injury to the plaintiff, it matters not whether the injury in fact sustained is physical, psychiatric or both.
-
White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others
“
It is a non sequitur to say that because an employer is under a duty to an employee not to cause him physical injury, the employer should as a necessary consequence of that duty (of which there is no breach) be under a duty not to cause the employee psychiatric injury: see Hilson, Nervous Shock and Categorization of Victims, [1998] Tort L.R. 37, at 42. The rules to be applied when an employee brings an action against his employer for harm suffered at his workplace are the rules of tort.
My Lords, the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify. In my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further. In reality there are no refined analytical tools which will enable the courts to draw lines by way of compromise solution in a way which is coherent and morally defensible.
-
Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
“
Broadly they divide into two categories, that is to say, those cases in which the injured plaintiff was involved, either mediately or immediately, as a participant, and those in which the plaintiff was no more than the passive and unwilling witness of injury caused to others.
-
R v Chan-Fook
“
Accordingly the phrase "actual bodily harm" is capable of include psychiatric injury. But it does not include mere emotions such as fear or distress nor panic nor does it include, as such, states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition.
-
Sentencing Act 2020
... ... 23 (administering poison etc) ;(v) section 28 (causing bodily injury by explosives) ;(vi) section 29 (using explosives etc with intent to do ... Act 1983,but not in hospital premises where high security psychiatric services are provided;“institution-based out-patient treatment” means ... ...
-
The Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2005
... ... injury lump sum” means the sum referred to in article 15B(2) ;F17“appropriate ... ...
-
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
... ... Act 1983, not being hospital premises at which high security psychiatric services within the meaning of that Act are provided ”; and(b) ... ...
-
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
... ... harm” means—(a) paraplegia;(b) quadriplegia;(c) severe brain injury or damage;(d) severe psychiatric damage;(e) total blindness;(f) total ... ...
-
Reforming Liability for Psychiatric Injury in Scotland: A Recipe for Uncertainty?
It is widely acknowledged that the common law rules governing liability for psychiatric injury in the United Kingdom are in an unsatisfactory state. The Scottish Law Commission has now published a ...
-
Sticks, Stones and Words: Emotional Harm and the English Criminal Law
This article discusses the rule that criminal liability does not normally attach for the causing of emotional harm or mental distress in the absence of proof of a ‘recognised psychiatric injury’. I...... ... or mental distress in the absence of proof of a ‘recognised psychiatric injury’. It considers what is involved in the diagnosis of psychiatric ... ...
-
Negligently Caused Psychiatric Harm: Recovering Principle and Fairness after the Alcock-Up at Hillsborough
This article argues that the law concerning pure psychiatric harm caused by negligence has been in a state of disrepair since the decision in Alcock. It is contended that the present unsatisfactory...... ... victims and the requirement for sudden shock, as well as continuing to use expert medical evidence to help determine causation for psychiatric injury. This article concludes that implementing such changes would lead to a fairer and more balanced situation whereby deserving claimants have a greater ... ...
-
Domestic Abuse, Suicide and Liability for Manslaughter: In Pursuit of Justice for Victims
There is significant debate about the attribution of criminal responsibility for involuntary manslaughter to a defendant who has subjected a victim to a protracted campaign of emotional abuse (fall...... ... to a protracted campaign of emotional abuse (falling short of psychiatric injury), where the victim has consequently taken their own life. By virtue ... ...
- Turbulent Times Psychiatric Injury In Aviation Claims
- Damages for Psychiatric Injury - the Approach Under the Discrimination Statutes
-
UK High Court gives useful recap on liability for stress-induced psychiatric illness in the workplace (Part 3)
In the first two parts of this series (part 1, part 2) we looked at how the Courts still regard the 2002 judgment in Hatton –v- Sutherland as the definitive statement on the law for liability for s...
-
Stress at Work: An Employer's Liability?
In Easton v B&Q Plc [2015] EWHC 880, the High Court considered whether an employer was liable for an employee’s psychiatric injury caused by work-related stress. Easton had been a high perform...... ... considered whether an employer was liable for an employee’s psychiatric injury caused by work-related stress ... Easton had been a high ... ...