The claimant sought damages for stress incurred at work. She had suffered post natal depression and received counselling through her work and recovered. She suffered a second bout of depression after the birth of another child, but again was thought to have recovered. A re-organisation left her answerable to three managers, and she complained of a lack of resources. She claimed for the subsequent depression, and relied on the knowledge in her employers of the earlier episodes.
Held: Though they were unconnected with her work, her employers should have known she would be more readily susceptible to further bouts. ‘[A]ssuming knowledge of the previous episodes of post natal depression, I do not accept that as a reasonable employer the defendant here should without more have taken into account that Mrs. D’s mental health was more at risk if she were placed under stress. ‘ The employer had given her an excessive workload and had not taken steps to ameliorate her position when it should have done so. It was liable.
Judges:
Goldring J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 1097 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Garrett v Camden London Borough Council CA 16-Mar-2001
The court considered a claim for work related stress. The claimant asserted that he had been harassed, intimidated and systematically undermined: ‘Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless . .
Cited – Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Cited – Hone v Six Continents Retail Ltd CA 29-Jun-2005
The employer appealed a finding that it was liable in damages for negligence to the claimant, and employee who suffered psychiatric injury cause by stress at work. He said he had been left to work very excessive hours, between 89 and 92 hours a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Personal Injury
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.242311
