Hicks and others v Wright (sued as Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police)

The appellants, parents of two daughters who died at the Hillsborough disaster, sought damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 for injuries allegedly suffered by their daughters before death. The central legal principles applied were (i) deference to concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts, and (ii) the requirement that physical injury causing compensable pain and suffering be proved to support a survivorship claim for the benefit of the estate.

The House of Lords affirmed the courts below: medical evidence established rapid loss of consciousness and death from traumatic asphyxia within minutes, and there was no proven physical injury suffered while conscious that would attract damages. The House further confirmed that fear or distress alone, however acute, does not give rise to recoverable damages for the deceased's estate.

This was an appeal from the Court of Appeal which had affirmed the decision of Hidden J at trial. The appellants were administrators of the estates of two daughters who died at Hillsborough. They claimed damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 for injuries allegedly sustained prior to death; bereavement statutory remedies were not available to them except in one limited respect because of the statutory scheme set out in the Administration of Justice Act 1982 and related provisions.

Procedural history: action tried before Hidden J who found that the plaintiffs had not proved any physical injury suffered by the daughters before death; the Court of Appeal (Parker, Stocker and Nolan L.JJ.) affirmed on 3 May 1991; leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted.

Issues framed:

• whether, on the evidence, the deceased had suffered physical injury causing pain and suffering prior to loss of consciousness and death;
• whether the House should overturn concurrent findings of fact by the courts below; and
• whether fear or terror, absent proof of physical injury, could found a survivorship claim for the estate.

Court's reasoning and conclusion: the House emphasised the established principle that concurrent findings of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. The medical evidence accepted by the trial judge indicated rapid onset of unconsciousness within seconds of severe chest compression and death within about five minutes. There was no reliable evidence of physical injury causing conscious suffering before the fatal crushing; superficial bruising in one case could have occurred before or after loss of consciousness. Given those factual findings, the court held it was open to the courts below to dismiss the claim and that fear alone does not constitute compensable injury for the estate. The House therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal's order.

Appeal dismissed. The House affirmed the Court of Appeal and trial judge's concurrent findings of fact that there was no proven physical injury causing conscious pain prior to loss of consciousness and death, and stated that fear alone does not give rise to a survivorship claim for the estate.

Tried at first instance by Hidden J (plaintiffs failed to prove physical injury before death). Judgment affirmed by the Court of Appeal (Parker, Stocker and Nolan L.JJ.) on 3 May 1991. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted and the House dismissed the appeal.