The employer appealed against a finding that it was responsible for the personal injury of the claimant in the form of psychiatric injury resulting from stress suffered working for them. She had told her employers that she was at the end of her tether, but they failed to respond, and a few weeks later her health broke down. The employer denied that they had been forewarned, and said that it was for her to refer herself to her doctor.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had not failed to distinguish stress and stress related illness. The employer claimed as per Hatton that having provided a counselling service, it shoud not be held liable. The importance of such a service was that the confidentiality might allow an employee to seek assistance without the employer knowing the details. The court expresed doubts however about the method of apportionment of damages used.
Judges:
Smith LJ, Sedley LJ, Wall LJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 1144
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Conn v Sunderland CA 7-Nov-2007
The claimant said that he had been harassed by the respondent through an employee.
Held: Under the 1997 Act, the behaviour had to go beyond the regrettable to the unacceptable, and would be of such gravity as would sustain criminal liability . .
Cited – Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd v Daw CA 7-Feb-2007
The company appealed against an award of damages to the defendant for personal injury in the form of stress induced mental illness.
Held: The reference to counselling services in Hatton did not make such services a panacea by which employers . .
Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Cited – Bailey v The Ministry of Defence and Another CA 29-Jul-2008
The claimant had suffered brain damage following cardiac arrest after inhaling vomit. She had inhaled her vomit because she was in a very weakened state. Two causes had contributed to her weakness, one tortious, the other not. The judge below held . .
Cited – Rahman v Arearose Limited and Another, University College London, NHS Trust CA 15-Jun-2000
The claimant had suffered a vicious physical assault from which the claimant’s employers should have protected him, and an incompetently performed surgical operation. Three psychiatrists agreed that the aetiology of the claimant’s very severe . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Employment, Damages
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276943