We are pleased to announce the winners of the Tort Law Awards 2024 by 12KBW and Thomson Reuters, as selected by the final competition judge, The Honourable Mr Justice Cotter.

The title for this year’s competition was:

In his dissenting judgment in Paul & Anor v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1, Lord Burrows said:

“The common law has struggled to deal satisfactorily with negligently caused “pure” psychiatric illness (that is, psychiatric illness that is not consequential on physical injury to the claimant). In the context of secondary victims – who can be regarded, generally speaking, as those who suffer psychiatric illness as a result of another’s death or injury or imperilment – the tort of negligence draws distinctions that are difficult to defend. It is arguable that the only truly principled solution, which would avoid any arbitrary line drawing, would be to impose a duty of care where, in general terms, it was reasonably foreseeable that psychiatric illness would be caused to the secondary victim (as a person of reasonable fortitude).”

Should English law adopt this “principled solution”?

Congratulations to our winners as selected by the final competition judge, The Honourable Mr Justice Cotter:

  • David Gringras (1st prize of £2,000)
  • Oliver Patterson (2nd prize of £1,250)

Both of the winners have the option of undertaking a mini-pupillage at 12KBW this year. The essay winning the 1st prize will be published on the Tort Law webpage of the Sweet & Maxwell website.

Mr Justice Cotter said:

“In The Law Commission report, Liability for Psychiatric Illness Law Com No 249 (1998), the Commission recommended reform and that, whilst in addition to the reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric illness the requirement should be retained that the secondary victim must have a close tie of love and affection to the primary victim, the other main restrictive common law requirements (as set out in Alcock [1992 ] AC 310) should be abandoned.

Over 25 years later, the Commissioner involved, now Lord Burrows, had a chance to change what many consider to be the unsatisfactory current law in Paul & Anor v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1. However, he failed to carry the other five Justices of the Supreme Court with him as he advocated a principled solution to a problematic issue.

This year’s competition gave an invitation to weigh up principle as opposed to what may be considered as essential pragmatism. The essays have again been of a remarkably high quality, and it has been very difficult indeed to select a winner. I wonder if in another 25 years any of the entrants may find themselves re-arguing the point before the Supreme Court.”

Follow the links to read the winning essays:

See last year’s winners.