Employers have a duty to take reasonable care to ensure their employees are not injured at work.
The Court of Appeal has decided in six appeals about stress at work (IDS 775) that the key issue is whether the injuries were reasonably foreseeable. It confirms the principles in the Court of Appeal case of Hatton and minimises the potential effect of the decision in Barber (LELR 90).
Details of the four most relevant cases follow.
Hartman v South East Essex Mental Health & Community Care NHS Trust
Mrs Hartman, who had a history of depression, had been a nursing auxiliary at a children's home since 1989. Following an accident in 1996 in which a child was killed, her hours increased significantly, putting her under great pressure (of which the trust was aware). In early 1999, she applied for ill health retirement because of depression.
The Court of Appeal did not think that the trust was in breach of its duty of care to Mrs Hartman. It said that working in a children's home was not in itself unduly stressful, and that she worked without any problems for a number of years, including the post-accident period. As for the issue of overwork, it said that there was nothing to indicate she was unable to cope.
Wheeldon v HSBC Bank Ltd
Mrs Wheeldon worked in a jobsharing scheme in two very busy branches. She complained to her manager from time to time about the pressure she was under, but nothing changed.
Following two depressive episodes in 1999, her GP told the bank that her mental ill health would continue to deteriorate if her duties were not reduced. The bank obtained a psychiatric report that confirmed her work was perpetuating her problems. Neither her hours nor her duties changed and her health deteriorated.
The Court of Appeal said that the bank's failure to act allowed her depression to "flourish". Although very unusual for a part timer to succeed in a stress-related claim, the harm she suffered was not just reasonably foreseeable but had, in fact, been foreseen.
Thompsons were instructed by Unifi.
Melville v The Home Office
As a prison health care officer, Mr Melville had recovered the bodies of eight suicide victims. After the last one (whom he had to cut down), he suffered nightmares and flashbacks and retired with a stress related illness.
The Home Office argued that, unless employers are aware of some particular vulnerability, they are entitled to assume that the employee is up to the normal pressures of the job. The fact that it had procedures to deal with the risks inherent in Mr Melville's job showed that it had done all it could.
But the Court of Appeal disagreed. It said that the question of whether the particular employee has shown signs of impending harm is only relevant when the employer has not foreseen a risk, and the employee's workload would not ordinarily carry a foreseeable risk. That was not the case here.
It added that just because an employer offers a counselling or occupational health service should not lead to the conclusion that he or she has foreseen a risk of psychiatric injury. And if it is available, the employer is unlikely to be found in breach even if the harm was foreseeable.
Best v Staffordshire University
Mr Best, a senior lecturer, retired on grounds of ill health in 2000 aged 46. He ascribed his breakdown to an unmanageable workload, and said the university should have provided more support.
The Court of Appeal, however, did not think that his breakdown was reasonably foreseeable. It said that although Mr Best had complained of overwork, he did not mention it when he applied for promotion in early 1997, nor at any of his appraisals.
There was no medical evidence of any depression, nor any evidence that more administrative help would have averted the breakdown, not least because 70% of it was due to non work-related causes.