Barber v. Somerset County Council [2004] UKHL 13 (1 April 2004)

Mr Barber, a schoolteacher, suffered a mental breakdown due to work-related stress after his employer failed to respond adequately to his complaints about workload. The House of Lords restored the trial judge's finding that the employer breached its duty of care by failing to investigate and provide assistance following clear warning signs of psychiatric harm.

Facts

Mr Alan Barber was a mathematics teacher at East Bridgwater Community School in Somerset. Following a 1995 restructuring, he took on additional responsibilities as Mathematics Co-ordinator and Project Manager for public and media relations, working between 61 and 70 hours weekly. By 1996, Mr Barber was suffering from stress and depression. In May 1996, he took three weeks off work with his doctor certifying ‘overstressed/depression’. Upon returning, Mr Barber met separately with all three members of the school’s senior management team, informing them he was not coping and that his health was declining. Mrs Hayward, the headteacher, responded unsympathetically, stating all staff were under stress. Mrs Newton ended the meeting abruptly, and Mr Gill merely advised prioritising work. No investigation or assistance was provided. In November 1996, Mr Barber suffered a breakdown at school and never returned to teaching.

Issues

Primary Issue

Whether Somerset County Council, as employer, breached their duty of care by failing to take steps to protect Mr Barber from psychiatric injury caused by work-related stress.

Secondary Issue

Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to overturn the trial judge’s finding of breach of duty.

Judgment

The House of Lords allowed the appeal by a 4-1 majority, restoring the trial judge’s judgment in favour of Mr Barber with damages of £72,547.02.

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe delivered the leading judgment. He held that the trial judge’s conclusion that the employer was in breach of duty should not have been disturbed by the Court of Appeal. The employer’s duty to take action arose in June and July 1996 when Mr Barber met with each member of the senior management team.

Lord Walker stated that the senior management team should have made inquiries about Mr Barber’s problems and taken steps to ease them:

“The senior management team should have made inquiries about his problems and seen what they could do to ease them, in consultation with officials at the County Council’s Education Department, instead of brushing him off unsympathetically (as Mrs Hayward and Mrs Newton did) or sympathising but simply telling him to prioritise his work (as Mr Gill did).”

On what steps should have been taken:

“At the very least the senior management team should have taken the initiative in making sympathetic inquiries about Mr Barber when he returned to work, and making some reduction in his workload to ease his return. Even a small reduction in his duties, coupled with the feeling that the senior management team was on his side, might by itself have made a real difference.”

Lord Scott of Foscote dissented, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the standard of care set by the trial judge was too high, and that schools were entitled to expect teachers to keep them fully informed about problems.

Legal Principles

The House of Lords endorsed the practical propositions set out by Hale LJ in the Court of Appeal, including:

• The threshold question is whether psychiatric harm to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable
• Foreseeability depends upon what the employer knows or ought reasonably to know about the individual employee
• An employer is generally entitled to assume an employee can withstand normal job pressures unless aware of particular problems or vulnerability
• To trigger a duty to take steps, indications of impending harm must be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise action is needed

Lord Walker endorsed the general statement of principle from Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold (Bolts and Nuts) Ltd [1968] regarding the conduct of a reasonable and prudent employer taking positive thought for worker safety.

Implications

This case establishes that employers owe a duty to investigate and take appropriate action when an employee returns from stress-related absence. The failure to make sympathetic inquiries and consider workload reductions can constitute a breach of duty. Employers cannot simply dismiss complaints by pointing to general workplace stress affecting all employees. The case also confirms that appellate courts should be slow to overturn trial judges’ findings on breach of duty where those findings depend on assessment of witness credibility and the evaluation of primary facts.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The House of Lords restored the trial judge's judgment in favour of Mr Barber, awarding damages of £72,547.02 plus interest, finding that Somerset County Council had breached their duty of care as employer.

Source: Barber v. Somerset County Council [2004] UKHL 13 (1 April 2004)