A similar application was then made by the Police Federation on behalf of 12 further officers. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has admitted liability in negligence in respect of the deaths and physical injuries. 0 1. The topic ‘White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1998)’ is closed to new replies. Equivalent Citation [1992] 1 AC 310. 11 On the distinction between primary and secondary victims see further White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455; Page v Smith [ í õ õ ò] A í. Bench. On 8 March 2019, the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police made an application to the coroner for anonymity for three officers, B, C and E and for them to give evidence from behind screens. White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others. Alcock is the single most important English authority on liability for nervous shock, since although its implications for so-called ‘primary victims’ and rescuers may have been diluted by later case law, as far as … Held: The general rules … This is a landmark English tort law case related to nervous shock. In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, claims were brought by those who had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. Case: White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] UKHL 45. The claim was rejected by the House of Lords on the basis that none of the claimants could be considered "primary victims" "since none of them were at any time exposed to personal danger nor … Charles Bagot analyses a quartet of new cases produced in the period since December 2014 ‘Some of the decisions in the 21 years between Alcock in 1992 and Taylor in 2013 are difficult to reconcile with one … This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Frost (or White) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455. The tortious duty of the master is based on contract. . The C’s daughter was the final victim of a serial killer. Lord Steyn in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] suggests four reasons as to why a distinction is drawn between physical and psychiatric injury: Evidential problems: the difficulties in drawing the line between psychiatric illnesses and mere grief, anxiety etc. March 2021 ACCA Exam Results. The police officers on duty at the time attempted to sue the Chief Constable for pure psychiatric injuries on account of vicarious liability. 349; Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310; Mount Isa Mines Ltd. v. Pusey (1970) 125 C.L.R. C further argued that breaching that duty has led to the death of her daughter. The case for such a course … A number of police officers brought claims for psychiatric injury suffered as a result of involvement in the event and its aftermath. Two of the plaintiffs were spectators in the ground, but not in the pens where the disaster occurred, the remainder of the plaintiffs learned of the disaster through radio or television broadcasts. The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. ACCA FM March 2021 Exam Results. White v/s Chief constable of South Yorkshire Police White v/s Chief constable of South Yorkshire Police Introduction Lord Steyn offered some reasons why recovery should not be allowed in this situation. The limits of the decision in Alcock were explored in the case of white v chief constable of south Yorkshire Police. The fact of the case: … Course. Main arguments in this case: Can a rescuer be entitled to claim for psychiatric harm? Whilst the symptoms are often similar, medical knowledge … Similarly, in its 2004 report on liability for … 2016/2017. ‘White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire’ was a psychiatric harm appeal that followed the infamous Hillsborough football stadium fatality of 1989 that saw 96 people dead, 700 injured and lots others emotionally scarred for life. Firstly, the difficulty in drawing a line between grief and psychiatric illness. It is agreed that this is a complex area, but it is not insoluble. Judgment - White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others continued (back to preceding text) Thus far and no further. This case analysis has been written by Tanya Gupta, a student pursuing BA LLB from Ideal Institute of Management and Technology and School of Law, affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi. The main difference between a primary and secondary victim is whether the victim is in the zone of … University. Judgment The Times Law Reports Cited authorities 35 Cited in 37 Precedent Map Related. Comments. The claim was rejected by the House of Lords on the basis that none of the claimants could be considered "primary victims" "since none of them were at any time exposed to personal danger nor … This is because of the policy factors that Lord Steyn in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 mentioned. This was established by the leading case of Dulieu v White & Sons where the defendant negligently drove his van into the premises, the victim feared for her safety, although she was not actually struck, she was frightened and suffered … All of them were connected in various ways with persons who were in that area, being related to such … The issue in question is whether the police men in white V chief constable of south Yorkshire, should have been successful in their claim for their psychiatric injuries on the notion that it would be incremental development of the law on psychiatric injury. Then there are also arguments about floodgates and creating a … ACCA AA March 2021 Exam Results. Psychiatric Injury: Taking a look at secondary victim claims ‘de Novo’ Hardwicke Chambers | Personal Injury Law Journal | June 2015 #136. In a surprising twist of events, the House of Lords decided to hear the … Also, awarding compensation can act as a disincentive to recovery. Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Helpful? There are two theoretical solutions. Please sign in or register to post comments. Secondary victim suffers nervous shock due to fear for someone else's safety, normally a close … I agree that for the reasons they give these appeals should be allowed and the actions dismissed. Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] Gamerco v ICM/Fair Warning Agency [1995] Gammon v A-G for Hong Kong [1985, Privy Council] Geary v JD Weatherspoon [2011] George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds [1983] Gibson v Manchester City Council [1978] Gibson v Orr [1999] Gillan v UK [2010] Gillett v Holt [2001] Gillingham DC v Medway Docks [1993] Glasgow Corp v Muir [1943] Glasgow Corp … This case arose from the Hillsborough football stadium disaster. ACCA FR March 2021 Exam Results. 3. This chapter considers the landmark decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 concerning liability for psychiatric injury, or ‘nervous shock’. The House of Lords dismissed the claims … Share. Primary and secondary victims. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5, [1992] 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersWhite v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 1 All ER 1 HL (UK Caselaw) Vincent. The first is to wipe out recovery in tort for pure psychiatric injury. Cited – Ringland v South Eastern Education and Library Board QBNI 16-Jun-2004 . Victoria University of Wellington. The officers present at the stadium were entitled to succeed without needing to meet Alcock criteria as special rules applied … Post your comments / Instant Poll. White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police was a 1998 case in English tort law in which police officers who were present in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster sued for post traumatic stress disorder. [Reference was made to Knightley v. Johns [1982] 1 W.L.R. Note White was known as Frost v. Chief Constable of … White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 Facts: Ps, police officers, suffered psychiatric damage due to experiences rescuing victims of Hillsborough disaster; Issue: were police officers primary or secondary victims? My Lords, the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify. In the subsequent House of Lords decision in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, for example, both Lord Goff and Lord Hoffmann described the Alcock criteria as 'arbitrary' 188 , and the latter said that in Alcock the 'search for principle' had been called off 189 , while Lord Steyn clearly took the view that the limits were based on policy considerations 190 . In turn, the answer depends on critical analysis of the law of psychiatric injury and its development with case of White V Chief constable of South Yorkshire … Access to the complete content on Law Trove requires a subscription or purchase. ACCA TX March 2021 Exam Results. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1998): psychiatric harm and rescuers. ACCA SBL March 2021 … Primary Sidebar. White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police was a 1998 case in English tort law in which police officers who were present in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster sued for post traumatic stress disorder. Sixteen separate actions were brought against him by persons none of whom was present in the area where the disaster occurred, although four of them were elsewhere in the ground. The chief constable owed to the plaintiffs a duty of care analogous to that of a master to his servant. White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998] 3 WLR 1509. These are the facts that expert witnesses are required, which cost a lot of money, and drag out the length of the case increasing the costs. It is not so certain that nightmares will be sufficient (White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1998)), but if it could be shown that there was a close link between the nightmares and the event, and that the nightmares were sufficiently severe, then an action could be possible. White and Others Respondents v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others Appellants House of Lords 3 December 1998 [1998] UKHL 45 [1999] 2 A.C. 455 Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann [Lord Browne-Wilkinson (in the majority) and Lord Griffiths (dissenting) gave the first two opinions. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords … LORD GRIFFITHS My […] The case of White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire confirms that if a person negligently puts another to a risk of injury, then they will be liable for any damage. admin April 27, 2017 August 10, 2019 No Comments on White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1998): psychiatric harm and rescuers. The application for anonymity was not contested by Mr Hall's family and an order was made, together with … It is a 1998 case in English tort law in which police officers who were present in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster sued for post traumatic stress disorder. WHITE AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS)v.CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE AND OTHERS (APPELLANTS)ON 3 DECEMBER 1998LORD BROWNE-WILKINSON My Lords, I have read in draft the speeches of my noble and learned friends, Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann. The term Zimmediate victim [ is used to describe the person whose imperilment is witnessed by the secondary victim. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – Psychiatric harm. ACCA PM March 2021 Exam Results. C argued that the police owed a duty to her daughter to conduct their investigation into the murders with reasonable care. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Case Analysis: Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. W v Essex CC (2000)2 ALL E.R 237; Attia v British gas plc (1988)QB 304; Dillon v Legg (1968) 29 ALR 3d 1316; NJ Mullany, "Fear for the Future: Liability for Infliction of Psychiatric Disorder", chapter 5 of Mullany (ed), …