Disability Discrimination Advice
Home.About Me.Case Examples.Publications.Contact.Recruitment.FAQ's.
Employment Law - Working For You - logo
Free Employment Advice
Employment Law - Working For You...
Photo of the scales of justice

freeeploymentadvice.co.uk

Workplace Stress: THE LEGAL ESSENTIALS - Case Law update April 2008

 

The summaries of cases on these pages illustrate developments in the Law of Workplace Stress 1999 to 2007.

Case Examples page
Background photo of the scales of justice

 

Workplace Stress

 

Foreseeability: Working Conditions

 

Foreseeability: Reasonable Steps

 

Foreseeability: Evidence: Notice of Psychiatric Injury

 

Foreseeability: Contract

 

Foreseeability: Contributory Negligence

 

Foreseeability: Depression

 

Foreseeability: Excessive Workload

 

Foreseeability: Work Overload

 

Foreseeability: Leading Case

 

Foreseeability: Arrangements for Return to Work

 

Victim classification: Employee Witnessing Colleague’s Death

 

Victim classification: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

 

Constructive dismissal: Implied Term to take Reasonable Care for Health and Safety of Employees

 

Constructive Dismissal: Medical Evidence

 

Unfair Dismissal: Cause of Illness

 

Unfair Dismissal: Employment Tribunal: Compensation for Personal Injury

 

Unfair dismissal: Common Law Remedy

 

Disability Discrimination: Anxiety Disorder: Medical Evidence

 

Disability Discrimination: Disability: Medical Diagnosis

 

Disability Discrimination: Disability: Evidence of Mental Impairment

 

Damages: Causation: Exacerbation of Pre-existing Condition

 

Damages: Quantum: Bullying at Work

 

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: Medical Evidence

 

Damages: Quantum: Anxiety Resulting from Minor Physical Injury

 

Damage: Meaning

 

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: Victim of Armed Robbery

 

Service Personnel: Safe System of Work

 

Employment Tribunal Procedure: Postponement of Hearing: Medical Evidence

 

Criminal liability

 

Foreseeability: Race Discrimination

 

Breach of Contract: Unfair Dismissal

 

Knowledge of Employer: Special Educational Needs School Teacher

 

Foreseeability: Stress Reduction Policy

 

Vicarious Liability: Breach of Statutory Duty: Harassment

 

Psychiatric Injury: Harassment: Foreseeability

 

Stress: Duty of Care Owed: Foreseeability

 

Stress: Duty of Care Owed: Workload

 

Stress: Foreseeability: Vicarious Liability

 

Psychiatric Injury: Foreseeability: Duty of Care

 

Post-traumatic Shock: Definition

 

Post-traumatic Shock: Suicide: Causation

 

Stress:duty of Care Owed: Workload

 

Psychiatric Injury: Foreseeability: Duty of Care

 

Post-traumatic Shock: Definition

 

Duty of Care Owed: Knowledge of Employer

 

 

Workplace Stress:

The Legal Essentials

April 2008

Health & Safety

Case Law update

April 2008

Disability Discrimination Update

April 2008

Home  About Me  Qualifications  Contact

Case Examples  -  Redundancy  Unfair dismissal  Constructive Dismissal  Unpaid Wages  Race Discrimination

Sex Discrimination  Disability Discrimination  Workplace Stress  Harassment & Bullying  Employment Tribunals

Publications  -  Health & Safety Law  Disability Law  Discrimination Law  Employment Tribunals  Croner’s  History of Law  Publishing   Recruitment  FAQ’s

Tutti Frutti Web Design logo

Foreseeability: Contract

 

McLoughlin v Grovers [2002] PIQR P222, CA

 

M was convicted of serious criminal offences.  His conviction was quashed and, on a retrial, he was acquitted.  He claimed to have suffered psychiatric damage because of breach of contract and/or negligence by his solicitors in the preparation of his defence for the original trial.  He sought damages from the solicitors.  At first instance his claim was struck out on the basis that it was too remote in contract and not reasonably foreseeable in tort.  M appealed to the Court of  Appeal which allowed the appeal and made the following points:

 

• M had been convicted of a serious crime and sent to prison for four years when he was not guilty and when he had reasonable cause  to believe that these misfortunes would not have arisen if his solicitors had handled his case with proper care.

• The case was one where the relationship between the parties was founded on contract.

• The solicitors’ lack of care included a failure to advertise for witnesses and a failure to give M information about the date of his trial.

• In deciding whether it was foreseeable that M would suffer psychiatric injury as a result of this lack of care, the judge should bear in mind the following matters:

 

(a) The requirement that compensation can only be recovered if the illness which results is a foreseeable result of the specific act or omission upon which the claimant relies.

(b) The requirement that damages can only be recovered if there is a sufficient degree of likelihood that the type of loss in question, namely psychiatric illness, will occur.

(c) The requirement that damages can only be recovered if it is foreseeable that psychiatric illness would have been suffered by the claimant, given all those features of his personal life and disposition of which the defendant was aware.

(d) The fact that the standard by which the defendants are to be judged is that of the ordinary reasonable man in the circumstances of the defendants, namely someone who is a solicitor practising criminal law and not someone who is a consultant psychiatrist.