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

A teacher suffered a stress-related breakdown after repeatedly warning his employer about an excessive workload. The House of Lords held the employer liable, finding they had breached their duty of care by failing to act once the risk of psychiatric injury became foreseeable.

Facts

Mr Robert Barber, a teacher employed by Somerset County Council, experienced a significant increase in his workload following a departmental restructuring. He was responsible for a demanding teaching schedule and held a middle-management role. Over several months, he complained to senior management on multiple occasions that he was struggling to cope with the excessive hours and associated stress, stating that his health was being affected. Despite these warnings, no significant steps were taken by the employer to reduce his workload or provide assistance. Subsequently, Mr Barber suffered a stress-induced depressive illness and was forced to take early retirement on grounds of ill-health.

The trial judge found in favour of Mr Barber, holding the council liable for his psychiatric injury. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, concluding that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable by the employer.

Issues

The primary legal issue before the House of Lords was whether the employer had breached its duty of care to the employee. This involved determining whether the psychiatric injury suffered by Mr Barber was reasonably foreseeable to his employer, and if so, whether the employer had taken reasonable steps to prevent that harm from occurring. The case required the application of the principles set out in the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in Hatton v Sutherland [2002] ICR 613 concerning liability for occupational stress.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed Mr Barber’s appeal, restoring the trial judge’s original decision. The leading judgment was delivered by Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, with whom the other Lords agreed.

Lord Walker’s Judgment

Lord Walker’s judgment centred on the application of the practical propositions set out by Hale LJ in Hatton. He emphasised that the crucial question was the foreseeability of harm. While an employer is generally entitled to assume an employee can withstand the normal pressures of a job, this assumption is broken once the employee explicitly communicates that they are struggling.

Lord Walker heavily criticised the Court of Appeal for substituting its own view of the facts for that of the trial judge, who was best placed to assess the evidence. The trial judge, having heard Mr Barber and his managers, had concluded that the employer was aware of his problems. Lord Walker found that Mr Barber’s discussions with his line managers were clear indications of impending harm to his health. Once such a warning is given, the employer’s duty to act is triggered.

He stated the core of the matter as follows:

In my opinion the Court of Appeal was not justified in reversing the trial judge’s conclusion on the crucial issue of foreseeability… The pathogenic effect of stress is, as Hale LJ noted in Hatton… a commonplace of modern life. Once it is accepted, as it was by the Court of Appeal, that Mr Barber did have the conversations with his headmaster and his deputies as the judge found, and that his integrity was not in question, the conclusion that his breakdown was foreseeable seems to be inescapable.

The council’s failure to take any positive steps—such as providing assistance, temporarily reducing his workload, or even making a sympathetic enquiry about his difficulties—constituted a breach of their duty of care. The employer could not simply do nothing. Lord Walker concluded:

I feel no doubt that the council was in breach of its duty of care. Mr Barber was a conscientious and valued member of staff. He was visibly suffering from stress. He had told the senior management team that he did not think he could go on. The council’s reaction was, in effect, to do nothing.

Implications

The decision in Barber v Somerset County Council is of major importance in the field of employer’s liability for psychiatric injury. It serves as a vital clarification and practical application of the principles established in Hatton v Sutherland. The key implication is that the threshold for foreseeability is significantly lowered once an employee informs their employer that they are suffering from stress and their health is at risk. It firmly places an onus on employers to take such complaints seriously and to respond proactively. An employer cannot remain passive; they are required to take reasonable steps to investigate the problem and determine what, if anything, can be done to alleviate the situation. The case underscores that a failure to manage an employee’s known vulnerability to stress can result in a finding of negligence.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed, and the trial judge’s order holding the employer liable was restored.

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