Despite the success of a few high profile cases, negligence claims for stress at work remain notoriously difficult to prove.

And the case of Vahidi v Fairstead House School Trust is no exception. The Court of Appeal has said that, although the claimant's second breakdown was foreseeable, the school did everything it could to support her and was not, therefore, negligent.

 

What were the basic facts?

Mrs Vahidi had been a reception class teacher at the school for over 20 years when she was dismissed because of ill health in November 1998. Things started to go wrong in September 1997 following an Ofsted inspection, which showed some serious weaknesses in her teaching methods.

As a result Mrs Vahidi had to agree to work more closely with another teacher to make the necessary changes, although she was said to have "appeared to resent (the teacher's) attempts to assist."

She went to see her GP in October, complaining of agitated depression. She complained that she was in a blind panic, and felt she was getting no support from the school. She remained on sick leave until June 1998.

On her return at the beginning of the autumn term, the school arranged for her to have regular support meetings with other teachers, and provided her with a classroom assistant. However, at the end of October, Mrs Vahidi left the school at lunch time and did not return.

Mrs Vahidi claimed damages from the school, alleging that she had suffered two episodes of severe clinical depression because of their negligence.

 

What did the High Court decide?

The judge decided that the school was not to blame for the first breakdown because it had not been reasonably foreseeable. However, although her second breakdown had been, the school had done everything it could to support her. Mrs Vahidi's relapse had occurred because she could not cope with the changes that were required of her.

Relying on the case of Hatton v Sutherland (2002, IRLR 263), the judge said that, although the head teacher was aware that Mrs Vahidi's health was deteriorating, the school was not in breach of duty by continuing to monitor her, as opposed to sending her home. The school was under the impression that she was still taking medication (although she was not) and that she was still fit for work.

Mrs Vahidi appealed against that decision, arguing that her employer had not given her enough support.

 

What did the Court of Apppeal decide?

The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court. It said that to argue otherwise was a travesty of the facts.

It pointed out that, as soon as Mrs Vahidi indicated that she wanted to come back to work, the head teacher had arranged a meeting to discuss it. She was then allowed to return part time.

Once the autumn term began, the court said that "it is difficult to see what more the school could have done by way of support". As for the allegation that the school had not done enough to get further medical help, the court said this was an "equally hopeless" allegation.

Although some staff had noticed that Mrs Vahidi was becoming withdrawn again in early October, they had no option but to accept her own assurances about her state of health.
To do otherwise would have been intrusive, and would have implied that they did not believe her. Likewise, the allegation that the school should have sent her home would have been perceived as a hostile act.

The court said would-be litigants would be better off mediating in cases of stress where, as in this one, the legal principles are already well established. This would also have saved everyone a great deal of money.