There have been a number of important cases in the courts that have tested the legislation. These are the important ones:
- Walker versus Northumberland County Council 1996
- Sutherland versus Hatton 2002
- Barber vs Somerset County Council 2002
Walker versus Northumberland County Council
This was the first time in a UK court that a judgement was found against an employer for stress at work. The court held that the employer, Northumberland County Council was liable for psychiatric illness because of the working environment of Walker.
Although it is now eight years old and there have been many cases since, the parameters of the case are still absolutely critical to the legislative environment pertaining to employer liability.
Key facts about the case.
Mr Walker was a social worker with no previous history of illness. At the end of November 1986 he suffered a nervous breakdown following an increase in his workload. He returned to work in March 1987 after five months sickness absence. He was advised by his GP not to go back to the same level of work as before and his manager agreed to arrangements to help alleviate the workload. When he returned to work has was faced with a backlog of case work that had built up while he was absent. But crucially, the arrangements made with his manager for alleviating workload were not put into place. Mr Walker suffered another nervous breakdown in September 1987 and was dismissed in February 1988 on the grounds of ill-health.
The court judgement was critical in formulating the grounds for liability. It found that the employer was not liable for the first nervous breakdown since this was not reasonably foreseeable. However, it stated that the second breakdown was reasonably foreseeable, especially since the arrangements for alleviating workload that should have been applied were not applied. The court found that the employer was in breach of its duty of care to Mr Walker in relation to the second breakdown. Prior to an appeal, Mr Walker negotiated an out of court settlement of £175,000 from his employer.
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.
How difficult is it to succeed with litigation?
The Court of Appeal laid down sixteen propositions that should be considered in personal injury claims. Contact us for further information on the sixteen propositions.
Because of the propositions it is very difficult for a Claimant to succeed in court. The employee must report the stress and prove that the employer knew or ought to have known that he was likely to become ill. The emphasis is very much on the employee to prove foreseeability and there is no duty on the employer to enquire about an employee’s health.
|