Case law did not move on substantially from the Walker case until 2002 when the Court of Appeal heard the case of Barber vs Somerset County Council.
Barber versus Somerset County Council
This case has become a very important case in the context of stress-related liability. The Court of Appeal found in Barber’s favour but the case subsequently went to the House of Lords.
Mr Barber was a school-teacher who developed symptoms of depression in 1995 which worsened in early 1996. However, he discussed this with nobody. Neither did the evidence show that Mr Barber was more over worked that any of the other teachers in the school. Following a period of absence in May 1996 with depression he raised the fact that he was concerned about his health with his employer. At the start of the new year the headmaster asked a colleague to keep a watchful eye on him. In November of 1996 he lost control in the classroom and he was asked to immediately stop work. The Court of Appeal found that there was not enough evidence to indicate that the problem had continued after the summer holidays and therefore the duty of care of the school to take affirmative action was not triggered.
However, the case subsequently went to the House of Lords. The management of the school was aware of the teacher’s problems but failed to take what the Lords termed ‘the prudent approach’, which was ‘to investigate and provide assistance’. The Lords suggested that a sympathetic employer would have investigated his situation ‘to see how his difficulties might be improved’.
The school failed to do this. The decision suggests that as soon as an employer is aware of an employee’s stress-related condition, the employer is under a duty to take steps to assist that employee. After receiving medical certificates from the teacher’s doctor and the teacher having discussed the issue with the school management the school should have been aware of and reacted to the teacher’s condition.
|