In Bevan v. Husak the Court of Appeal addressed the plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of mental suffering, ultimately allowing the appeal and reinstating the claim. The lower court had previously struck out the claim, finding insufficient proximity between the parties to establish a duty of care. The lower court had reasoned that Mrs. Bevan’s psychological harm resulted from what happened to her daughter Katelin, not from Husak’s conduct itself.

However, the Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge applied an overly narrow interpretation of proximity and foreseeability. The appellate court clarified that in claims for negligent infliction of mental suffering, a duty of care can arise if it is foreseeable that the plaintiff would suffer emotional distress as a result of the defendant’s negligent conduct. Given that Husak’s misrepresentations led to Mrs. Bevan leaving her daughter in his care, it was foreseeable that Mrs. Bevan could experience mental harm upon discovering her daughter was harmed while in Husak’s custody.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that Mrs. Bevan’s emotional distress claim was not based on distant consequences, but on the direct results of Husak’s actions, specifically his misrepresentations and failure to protect Katelin. This was sufficient to establish an arguable claim for the tort of negligent infliction of mental distress. To be clear: the Court of Appeal did not find the plaintiff’s claim was successful, merely that it did not “have no prospect of success whatsoever”.

This brief summary is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon for any legal purpose.