Sutherland v Hatton [2002] EWCA Civ 76 (05 February 2002)

Four employees claimed damages for psychiatric illness caused by workplace stress. The Court of Appeal established practical principles for employer liability in occupational stress cases, allowing three appeals and dismissing one. The court held that foreseeability of psychiatric harm to the specific employee is the threshold question.

Facts

Four appeals were heard together concerning employees who suffered psychiatric illness attributed to workplace stress. Mrs Hatton and Mr Barber were secondary school teachers, Mrs Jones was an administrative assistant at a local authority training centre, and Mr Bishop was a factory operative. Each had succeeded at first instance in claims against their employers for negligence.

Mrs Hatton

A French teacher who suffered depression in October 1995 after changes in her school including modular teaching and departmental disruptions. She never complained about overwork and attributed her 1994 absence to personal problems when asked by her headteacher.

Mr Barber

A maths teacher who experienced stress following school restructuring in 1995-96. He had three weeks off work for depression in May 1996 and spoke to senior staff about difficulties but did not describe his specific symptoms. He suffered a breakdown in November 1996.

Mrs Jones

An administrative assistant whose job involved work previously done by two to three people. She repeatedly complained about overwork and unreasonable treatment by her manager from 1993, with formal written complaints in 1994 explicitly mentioning health effects. She went off sick in January 1995.

Mr Bishop

A factory worker who struggled to adapt to reorganised work patterns introduced in 1995-96. He complained to his manager and submitted sick notes referring to neurasthenia, but did not disclose that his GP had advised him to change careers.

Issues

The central issues were: (1) whether psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable to each employer; (2) whether the employers breached their duty of care; and (3) whether any breach caused the harm suffered.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal allowed the employers’ appeals in the cases of Mrs Hatton, Mr Barber and Mr Bishop, and dismissed the appeal in Mrs Jones’s case.

Legal Principles Established

The court set out 16 practical propositions for determining such claims:

The threshold question is whether psychiatric harm to the particular employee was reasonably foreseeable, having two components: an injury to health attributable to stress at work. An employer is usually entitled to assume an employee can withstand normal job pressures unless aware of particular problems or vulnerability. There are no occupations intrinsically dangerous to mental health. Relevant factors include the nature and extent of work, signs from the employee, workload compared to others, and any complaints or warnings given.

An employer is generally entitled to take what employees tell them at face value without making searching enquiries. Indications of impending harm must be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise action is needed. The employer must only take steps which are reasonable in the circumstances and likely to do some good. An employer offering confidential advice and counselling services is unlikely to be in breach. If the only effective step would be dismissal, allowing a willing employee to continue is not a breach.

Application to Individual Cases

In Mrs Hatton’s case, her workload was not greater than other teachers, she never complained about it, and her absences were attributable to other causes. The school could not reasonably be expected to probe further when she attributed problems to home circumstances.

In Mr Barber’s case, while stress at work contributed to his illness, the court found insufficient indication that the school had a duty to take positive steps. He did not consider himself a candidate for psychiatric illness until May 1996, and his communications to management before the summer holidays were insufficiently specific.

In Mrs Jones’s case, the employers knew excessive demands were being placed on her, knew she was complaining of unreasonable treatment, took her complaints seriously enough to arrange extra help twice without providing it, and received two formal written complaints about health effects. This was sufficient to make psychiatric harm foreseeable and identify a breach of duty.

In Mr Bishop’s case, there was nothing unusual about the demands placed on him and two sick notes referring to neurasthenia were insufficient indication of risk to mental health. Even if there had been, there was nothing reasonable the employer could do since his old job no longer existed.

Implications

This judgment established the leading framework for employer liability in occupational stress claims. It emphasised that foreseeability must be assessed in relation to the particular employee, not employees generally. The court balanced employee protection against concerns about employers becoming reluctant to hire those with psychiatric histories. The judgment stressed that stress itself is not the same as injury, and that many stress-related illnesses have complex causes requiring apportionment. Employers who provide confidential counselling services receive significant protection from liability.

Verdict: The Court of Appeal allowed the employers' appeals in the cases of Mrs Hatton, Mr Barber and Mr Bishop, setting aside the damages awards. The appeal in Mrs Jones's case was dismissed, upholding the award of £157,541.

Source: Sutherland v Hatton [2002] EWCA Civ 76 (05 February 2002)