Taylor v Novo [2013] EWCA Civ 194

Facts:

  • C’s mother died suddenly three weeks after being negligently injured at work.
  • C developed PTSD, as a result of witnessing her mother’s death (she was not present at the original accident or its immediate aftermath).
  • In bringing her claim against her mother’s employers, C argued that proximity existed between the accident and her mother’s collapse and death.

 Issue:

  • Could recovery from mental injury as a secondary victim from a delayed event occur?


 Ratio:

  • Claim rejected by CoA.
  • There was one accident which had two consequences. If C was in physical proximity to her mother at the time of the accident and had suffered shock and psychiatric illness as a result of seeing the accident and the injuries sustained by her mother, she would qualify as a secondary victim, however this is not the case here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

3. ‘The defence of ‘Honest Opinion’ under s.3 of The Defamation Act 2013 is not robust enough to protect free speech and rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’ Discuss.

Introduction: There is a narrow line between freedom of expression and the right of one’s reputation. To make this line more clear, the Defamation Act 2013 was created. One of the defences was one of ‘Honest Opinion’ which provided that a statement of opinion, based on facts, was one that could be held by an honest person. The connection to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) was that Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression and information, and the UK courts were then given the task of finding the balance between the two in relation to defamation cases. Although the Defamation Act 2013 has been found to encourage freedom of expression, it does not protect free speech and rights to the same extent that the ECHR does. P1: The aim of the Defamation Act is to provide better protection for free speech. The main legal case that underlies the honest opinion defence in this Act was Joseph v Spiller [2010]. The defendants, a management agency, had publis...
Read more

R. (on the application of Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002] EWCA Civ 1598, (2002)

Facts: The first claimant was a British national who had been captured by the United States forces in Afghanistan and detained in Guantanamo Bay as an 'enemy combatant' He was deprived of access to court proceedings and legal advice, and applied for judicial review in the UK seeking to compel the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs either to intervene with the US government or alternatively to explain the omission to do so Issue: Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the decision by the Secretary of State not to intervene Whether the UK government had any duty to protect the claimant as one of its citizens Held: The Court could review the decisions on grounds of rationality and legitimate expectation The Court held that there was no legal duty on the state to protect its citizens in such circumstances
Read more

Revill v Newbery [1996] QB 567

Facts: C, a burglar, was shot by D as he attempted to gain access to D’s shed. C sued D in negligence and under the 1984 Act. Ratio: CoA rejected D’s attempt to raise the defence of illegality. C was contributorily negligent and his damages decreased by ⅔.
Read more