Whayman v The Motor Accidents Insurance Board

The court heard a case brought by Whayman against the Motor Accidents Insurance Board, in which the central issue was the assessment of damages for mental and nervous shock suffered by the plaintiff following a motor accident. The plaintiff contended that she had experienced a recognised psychiatric illness due to the incident, warranting compensation. The Motor Accidents Insurance Board argued that the plaintiff's condition did not amount to a recognised psychiatric illness and was merely ordinary grief and sorrow resulting from the accident. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate measure and scope of damages for the plaintiff's mental and nervous shock.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the plaintiff's condition qualified as a recognised psychiatric illness under the common law, separate from the ordinary emotional distress and grief typically associated with such accidents. The court needed to establish the criteria for determining what constitutes a recognised psychiatric illness and assess whether the plaintiff's condition met these criteria. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of remoteness of damages to decide if the plaintiff's claimed mental and nervous shock was a foreseeable consequence of the accident.

The court ruled that the plaintiff's condition did not amount to a recognised psychiatric illness as it was essentially ordinary grief and sorrow, which is a normal human response to a distressing event. The court emphasised that for damages to be awarded, the plaintiff must demonstrate that her condition is more than just ordinary grief, aligning with the common law's distinction between recognisable psychiatric illness and normal emotional responses. The court further held that the plaintiff's claims of mental and nervous shock were too remote to be compensable under the common law. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages.