Introduction
In this case, Ahmed want to create legal claims on Computech Ltd due to his nervous shock after seeing Joanne electrocuted body on the floor during his afternoon shift. He became a psychiatric patent at the hospital due to mentally derange. He felt the company should take responsibility of his illness.
Statute Law
Law Commission Report (Liability for Psychiatric Damage [1998]) No. 249 statutory amended to replace Alcock rule. The recommendations of the statutory report (Adams, 2008):
- The class of persons presumed to have a close bond of love and affection should be extended to include siblings and cohabitees of at least two years’ standing (including same-sex partner).
- The claimant’s illness need not be caused by a sudden shock but might arise from a build-up of anxiety and stress over a period of time.
- The claimant’s proximity to the accident or its aftermath should be irrelevant.
- If physical injury were reasonably foreseeable there would be liability even if only psychiatric injury resulted.
Case Laws
Page Vs Smith [1995]
Page suffered a recurrence of ME [Myalgic Encephalomyelitis] which considered as a psychiatric condition. According to Lord Keith and Lord Jauncey in Page case; there is a prima facie duty of care where foreseeability of danger, and sufficient proximity relationship. In deciding of Page case, Lord Keith and Lord Jauncey announced there is an establishment of duty of care since Page established with eggshell personality aftermath.
Palmer Vs Tees Health Authority [1999]
Palmer suffered psychiatric illness from her daughter abduction and death. However, Lord Stuart-Smith said there is no prima facie duty of care, since there is no foreseeability of danger, and insufficiently proximate towards the incident occurred. In deciding Palmer case, Lord Stuart-Smith announced there is no duty of care since Palmer did not witness the abduction, or the murder, or the discovery of her daughter body, and what Palmer had witnessed and experienced did not prove any proximity and foreseeability on her.
Interpretations
In, Alcock rules has clearly stated claimants must prove; 1) a sudden and immediate attack upon their senses, 2) a close love and affection between claimant and victim, 3) a sufficiently proximate towards the accident, and 4) the trauma level that claimant witnessed. In Ahmed case, Alcock rules are essential as to test whether he is liable to compensate from Computech Ltd, or otherwise.
There is no prima facie duty of care between Ahmed and Computech Ltd, as, he unable to past the test of Alcock Rules. this case is akin to Palmer Vs Tee Health Authority [1999]; first, he did not witness victim electrocution accident; second, he is not bond to victim as he is only victim colleague; third, in term of time and space, Ahmed only witness victim body only when he arrived on his afternoon shift; and lastly, although he suffer from distraught from victim death, however, there is lack of foreseeability where he can claim upon.
Also, there is no breach of duty from Computech Ltd; since victim death is due to her own negligent which the company is not liable upon. This case is unlike Page Vs Smith [1995]; as he has failed to prove any foreseeability and proximity within this case. In Philip Vs William Whitely [1938] case has answered the question as victim should be more cautious when she attempting to insulate the loose cable. In addition, company will not liable upon errant due to lack of experience as it is not considered as consideration, also, Ahmed psychiatric illness is unrelated to victim death.
Res ipsa loquitor, Ahmed cannot be compensate since the ‘but for’ test had not been satisfied. Since, he failed to prove any foreseeability and proximity; the company will not liable upon his distraught illness. In addition, according to The Compensation Act [1996] section 1 stated, ‘claimant’s can be compensate, if, there is negligence or breach of duty by the defendant’, however, in Ahmed case, there is no negligence, or breach of duty occur, and in result, he unable to proceed with legal claim upon Computech Ltd.
Bibliography
Adams, A. (2008). Law for Business Students. London: Pearson: Longman.
Updated 18 March 2026
This article contains a number of legal inaccuracies and outdated or incorrect statements that readers should be aware of.
Law Commission Report: The Law Commission Report on Liability for Psychiatric Illness (Law Com No 249, 1998) was a report containing recommendations, not a statutory instrument. Its recommendations were never enacted into legislation. The article incorrectly states it was “statutory amended to replace Alcock rules” — this is wrong. The Alcock [1992] AC 310 rules remain the governing common law framework for secondary victim claims for psychiatric injury in England and Wales. No statutory scheme has replaced them.
Page v Smith [1995]: The article’s description of this case contains inaccuracies. The leading judgments were given by Lord Lloyd (with whom Lords Ackner and Browne-Wilkinson agreed), not Lords Keith and Jauncey as stated. The core ratio — that for a primary victim, psychiatric injury need not be foreseeable provided some personal injury was foreseeable — should be noted carefully. Readers should also be aware that the Supreme Court in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1 has significantly revisited and restricted the law on secondary victim psychiatric injury claims, reaffirming and in some respects tightening the Alcock control mechanisms. This is a major development post-dating this article that substantially affects the legal landscape described.
The Compensation Act: The article refers to “The Compensation Act [1996] section 1” — the correct statute is the Compensation Act 2006, not 1996. Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 concerns the deterrent effect of potential liability and does not state what the article claims. The article’s summary of that provision is therefore both factually and legally incorrect.
Phillips v William Whiteley [1938]: The article refers to “Philip Vs William Whitely [1938]” — this case concerned the standard of care expected of a non-specialist (a jeweller performing ear-piercing), and its relevance to the scenario described is not straightforward. Readers should treat this citation with caution.
Overall: The article’s general analytical framework — applying the Alcock control mechanisms to secondary victim claims — reflects an approach that remains broadly relevant, but the specific legal statements made are frequently inaccurate. The 2024 Supreme Court decision in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust is essential reading for anyone researching this area of law today.
