Psychiatric injury claims by secondary victims: clarification and correcting wrong turnings

The author analyses the recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust.1 The case is a significant one not only because the court was invited -and ultimately declined - to develop the law in relation to recovery for psychiatric injury by secondary victims, but also because of its clarification of the scope of a doctor’s duty of care. In the course of the judgment, the court also took the opportunity to correct some wrong turnings taken in earlier court decisions.