Helen Simmons vs Chief Constable

This case concerned an application by the defendant for a direction to deal with generic issues as preliminary issues in employer's liability claims involving psychiatric injury of police officers.

TLDR:

• The defendant sought to address generic issues as preliminary issues before trial.
• Claims involved psychiatric injury of police officers in specialist units.
• The court refused the defendant's application, citing potential for further delay and increased costs.

The 16 actions were employer’s liability claims alleging negligence and breach of statutory duty while the plaintiffs were employed as police officers in various specialist units, resulting in psychiatric injury, loss, and damage. The claims were at different stages, with some more advanced than others. The defendant asked the court to determine as a preliminary issue whether it was under a duty of care to implement certain generic measures and if so, during what period and in respect of what category of officers.

The defendant argued that dealing with these issues early would avoid further delay, save costs, and shorten the trials of the substantive actions. They proposed that expert evidence be called on the generic issues. The plaintiffs, however, strongly resisted this approach, arguing it would cause further delay, duplicated costs, and was not practicable or fair.

The court considered the legal principles and previous case law, including the need for issues to be short and easily resolved to be suitable for preliminary determination. It was noted that the generic issues raised by the defendant were complex and intertwined with the individual circumstances of each case.

The court also reviewed the procedural history of one of the cases, Helen Simmons, highlighting significant delays caused by the defendant’s actions. The court concluded that a hearing on generic issues would likely cause further delay rather than prevent it.

The court was not persuaded that dealing with the generic issues separately would save time or costs. It was noted that the trial of the generic issues could take several days and would not obviate the need for individual trials. The court emphasized the importance of dealing with cases justly and expeditiously, considering the complexity and sensitivity of the issues involved.

The court concluded that the defendant’s application was misguided and would not lead to a decisive resolution of the claims. It was determined that the cases should proceed in the conventional manner, dealing with them separately as they come on for hearing.

For these reasons, the court refused the defendant’s application and awarded costs to the plaintiffs. The court directed that the actions be referred to a judge for review and consideration of pre-trial directions.

Legal representatives: Mr Brian Fee KC, Mr Smyth BL, Ms Leonard BL (instructed by Hewitt and Gilpin, McCartan Turkington Breen, Babington & Croasdale, Edwards & Co.) for the 6th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th plaintiffs. Mr Patrick Lyttle KC, Mr Ham BL, Mr Malachy McGowan BL, Mr Warnock BL, Ms Moran BL (instructed by Mac Elhatton Solicitors, McCartan Turkington Breen) for 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th, 14th, 15th plaintiffs. Mr Gary Potter KC (instructed by Edwards and Co., MacElhatton Solicitors) for 1st and 11th plaintiffs. Mr Gilmore BL (instructed by Edwards and Co and MacElhatton Solicitors) for the 3rd and 16th plaintiffs. Mr Hanna KC, Mr Lunny KC, Ms Fee BL (instructed by Crown Solicitor) for the defendant.

Judicial Panel: Master Harvey

Case Citation Reference: [2023] NIQB 456