Supreme Court sets legal precedent on doctors' duty of care: Key implications unveiled

In a historic ruling, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in three appeals—Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Polmear v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, and Purchase v Ahmed. These cases revolved around allegations that the defendants failed to diagnose life-threatening conditions, leading to traumatic deaths and subsequent psychiatric injuries to close relatives.

Lord Leggatt and Lady Rose, in the leading judgment, examined whether doctors, in addition to their duty to patients, also owe a duty to protect close family members from illness resulting from witnessing medical crises caused by the doctor's negligence. To establish a duty of care, two elements are crucial: foreseeability of harm and proximity in the relationship.

The majority of the Supreme Court concluded that no duty of care extended to close family members, as the relationship of proximity did not exist. The court emphasized that doctors should reasonably consider only those directly involved in the patient's care, excluding close family members psychologically affected by witnessing a disease the doctor failed to diagnose and treat.

Despite recognizing the distress experienced by Saffron and Mya Paul, Lynette and Mark Polmear, and Tara Purchase, the majority held that the law cannot impose duties based on sympathy alone.

The Supreme Court clarified it wasn't tasked with altering limits on damages recovery for "secondary victims" established in the House of Lords' earlier decision in Alcock. Instead, the court considered cases where illness results from witnessing a death or manifestation of injury due to a pre-existing condition, deeming them not analogous.

While a dissenting minority judgment by Lord Burrows exists, Lord Carloway confirmed the majority's judgment applies in Scotland.

Browne Jacobson, a UK & Ireland law firm, represented NHS Resolution in two of the appeals. Jonathan Fuggle, Partner at Browne Jacobson, expressed that the Supreme Court's decision brings much-needed clarity to the evolving landscape of claims for psychiatric harm, resolving conflicting case law and benefiting both lawyers and their clients.