0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Harrhy v Thames Trains Limited, High Court, 13 July 2003

16 September 2003
The issues

Psychiatric injury – Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police – post-traumatic stress.

The facts

The Claimant was a Senior Driver Standards Manager employed by Thames Trains Limited. On 5th October 1999 the Paddington rail crash occurred. Immediately after the disaster the Claimant was appointed Rail Operator Liaison Officer and was told to attend the accident site as Thames Trains representative. He was there for long hours the day after the accident and on a number of the days that followed. He claimed that his duties obliged him to enter burnt out carriages, view corpses and see the aftermath of the crash close at hand. As a consequence he alleged that he developed depression linked with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. He brought an action against Thames Trains alleging that they were negligent in failing to provide him with a safe system of work, to provide training to him before requiring him to undertake the task or to provide psychological support and counselling after it was over. The Defendant applied to strike out. The Master allowed the claim to proceed. The Defendant appealed to the High Court Judge.

The decision

1. In McLoughlin v O’Brien, Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Page v Smith, the House of Lords approved the following principles:-

(a) Those who suffered injury involving shock were to be looked at in two categories, primary victims (those directly involved in the accident and within the range of foreseeable physical injury) and secondary victims (those in the position of spectators or bystanders).

(b) Secondary victims only qualified for compensation if they passed the specific control tests, namely that they were bound to the persons whose injury or imperilment they witnessed by close ties of natural love and affection, that they were close in time and space to the original injury or imperilment, and that they witnessed the same by means of their own senses.

2. In Frost, the Court was asked to consider the claims of police officers who had been involved in the immediate aftermath of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster as against their employer. In Frost Lord Steyn pointed out the fact of an employer relationship was itself no reason for allowing an employee to recover damages for a psychiatric injury in circumstances in which he would as a secondary victim fail to overcome the Alcock controls. Lord Steyn and it appeared Lord Hoffman both considered Mr Walker in Walker v Northumberland County Council to be a primary victim and not a secondary victim. There were doubts as to whether Walker survived Frost. Lord Hoffman appeared to approve Frost but at the same time had warned that it was not legitimate to take the easy step of extending employers liability from physical injury to psychiatric injury without looking first to see how that proposed extension fits with other cases in which liability exists or in which it has been denied. The categorisation of those claiming to be included as secondary victims was not closed and was a concept still developing in different factual situations – see W v Essex County Council.

3. It was open to a Judge trying this claim to prefer to follow Walker and it was at least arguable that there was nothing in anything the House of Lords had said since 1995 that had made Walker bad law. The Master was correct therefore not to strike out this claim.

focus on...

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up