ATE Insurance in Action: Secondary Victim Claims After Paul

MIM v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

By Oliver White, Underwriter

Estimate read time 1 minute 23 seconds

This case provides further guidance on secondary victim claims in a clinical negligence setting following the Supreme Court’s decision in Paul, which significantly narrowed the circumstances in which psychiatric injury claims by secondary victims can succeed.

The claim concerned a husband seeking damages for psychiatric injury allegedly suffered after witnessing his wife’s labour and the birth of their child. The child required resuscitation at birth and suffered a brain injury. Negligence in the management of labour was admitted.

The defendant applied to strike out the claim, arguing that it had no realistic prospect of success following Paul. A central issue for the Court was whether the events witnessed by the husband could properly be characterised as an “accident”, as a secondary victim must generally witness an accident that causes, or has the capacity to cause, injury to the primary victim.

The claimant argued that the case could be distinguished from Paul because the alleged negligence and resulting injury occurred in his presence over a relatively short period of time. He witnessed both the events giving rise to the injury and the outcome.

The Court disagreed. It held that there was no relevant accident and therefore no viable secondary victim claim. In reaching that conclusion, the Court stated: “No accident happens to the mother, and any effect the ordinary internal workings of the mother’s body may have had upon the unborn baby … cannot in and of themselves be described as an accident in any normal sense.”

Importantly, however, the Court also made clear that: “Paul does not preclude a secondary victim from ever succeeding in a claim arising out of clinical negligence.”

The Temple Perspective

This judgment provides useful clarification following Paul. While secondary victim claims arising from clinical negligence remain possible, the Court has reinforced the importance of identifying a qualifying accident. The decision also provides further guidance on how the courts are likely to approach these claims and the factors that may determine whether they can proceed.