Abstract

The rules governing recovery for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury are among the most criticized of all of tort law. However, one area which, to date, has escaped with a minimum of judicial or academic scrutiny concerns the very threshold requirement for these actions: proof of a ‘recognized psychiatric illness’. This article critiques that longstanding requirement of English law from two perspectives. First, it is argued that the international classifications of psychiatric disorders (ICD-10 and DSM-IV) are being misapplied and misconstrued in the English medico-legal context and that the role (and limitations) of these classifications are worthy of far greater judicial examination and critical scrutiny than has typically been the case to date. Secondly, it is contended that the insistence upon a recognized psychiatric illness, as a threshold requirement, is giving rise to inconsistencies and distortions in the law and that the requirement is neither legally nor medically supportable in the modern era. Instead, it is argued that the stage has been reached whereby something lesser than a recognized psychiatric illness should be sufficient to trigger a compensable injury in law. The article concludes by suggesting various legal avenues by which to feasibly and robustly ‘ring-fence’ the number of potential claims in negligence, should the reform-oriented approach of this article be adopted