Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 1792
NEGLIGENCE – PSYCHIATRIC HARM – SECONDARY VICTIMS – SINGLE TRAUMATIC EVENT – EFFLUXION OF TIME – SUDDEN APPRECIATION OF EVENT BY CLAIMANT
Facts
N, an NHS trust, appealed against a decision granting damages to the claimant (C) for a psychiatric condition C suffered as a result of events which resulted in the death of her infant son (B). A hospital run by N had failed, negligently, to diagnose B's acute hepatitis, and as a result B suffered a seizure which was witnessed by C. The hospital initially informed C that B had suffered no brain damage but it later transpired that B had incurred severe brain damage and would have no quality of life. C agreed to terminate life support and B died in her arms. C brought an action against N for psychiatric damage, which was upheld, and N appealed on the basis that C was insufficiently proximate
Issue
Whether, in order to recover damages for psychiatric harm, the claimant must have witnessed a single traumatic event or its immediate aftermath, or whether, as was the case here, it would suffice that the event itself transpired over a period of hours but the appreciation of the claimant was itself sudden. It was also argued by N that, as a matter of policy, to recognise liability in such circumstances would overextend the ambit of negligence with respect to psychiatric damage.
Held
C was entitled to recover damages as a secondary victim. In such cases the claimant must have witnessed a horrifying event or its immediate aftermath, as C had done. Such an event, moreover, was not limited to one moment in time; a realistic approach had to be taken in such cases, and on a realistic appraisal of the facts C had suffered nervous shock as a result of the sudden impact of being informed of B’s condition.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the Court of Appeal’s decision in Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 1792. The case remains good law and continues to be cited in discussions of secondary victim psychiatric harm claims, particularly on the question of what constitutes a single horrifying event for the purposes of the control mechanisms established in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310.
Readers should be aware of significant subsequent developments in this area. The Supreme Court revisited the control mechanisms for secondary victim claims in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1, which also considered Walters directly. The Supreme Court held that a secondary victim need not witness a accident or its immediate aftermath at the scene; what matters is that they witness, with their own unaided senses, the relevant horrifying event. However, the Court in Paul also clarified and, in some respects, refined the legal framework for secondary victim claims in clinical negligence cases, and students relying on Walters should read it alongside Paul to understand the current legal position.
