freeeploymentadvice.co.uk
Workplace Stress: THE LEGAL ESSENTIALS -
The summaries of cases on these pages illustrate developments in the Law of Workplace Stress 1999 to 2007.
Foreseeability: Working Conditions
Foreseeability: Reasonable Steps
Foreseeability: Evidence: Notice of Psychiatric Injury
Foreseeability: Contributory Negligence
Foreseeability: Excessive Workload
Foreseeability: Arrangements for Return to Work
Victim classification: Employee Witnessing Colleague’s Death
Victim classification: Post-
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-
Damages: Quantum: Bullying at Work
Post-
Damages: Quantum: Anxiety Resulting from Minor Physical Injury
Post-
Service Personnel: Safe System of Work
Employment Tribunal Procedure: Postponement of Hearing: Medical Evidence
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-
Post-
Stress:duty of Care Owed: Workload
Psychiatric Injury: Foreseeability: Duty of Care
Post-
Disability Discrimination Update
April 2008
Home About Me Qualifications Contact
Case Examples -
Sex Discrimination Disability Discrimination Workplace Stress Harassment & Bullying Employment Tribunals
Publications -
Foreseeability: Excessive Workload
Bonser v UK Coal Mining Ltd (2003) The Times, June 9, Court of Appeal
B claimed compensation from her former employers for psychiatric injuries resulting from her excessive workload. Her claim succeeded. the employers appealed to the Court of Appeal. They decided:
1. The appeal should be allowed.
2. This was a sad case. B was a hard-
3. In jumping to the conclusion, from the only visible sign, an occasion when B was tearful and upset, that it was reasonably foreseeable that the stress would cause her to crack, the judge fell into error.
4. That event did not sufficiently foretell that B would have a breakdown. In those circumstances, no foresight compelled the employers to take reasonable steps to avert the threat of injury to her health.
5. B did not meet the high threshold set by the Court of Appeal in Sutherland v Hatton (2002) for succeeding in a cause of action for damages for psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
6. There had to be a sufficient indication of impending harm to health arising from the stress at work, plain enough for any employer to trigger a duty for the employer to do something about it.
7. The general principle was as follows: For an employee to recover damages for psychiatric injury caused by workplace stress, it had to be demonstrated that the employee had exhibited sufficient signs for it to be reasonably foreseeable by the employer that injury to health would result from the stress caused.
Comment:
This decision is another example of the application of the principle in Sutherland v Hatton. In the Bonser case, the requirement of foreseeability was not fulfilled.