Court of Appeal ruling on "stress" claims

Tuesday's Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Hatton -v- Sutherland restricts the ability of employees to claim compensation from their employers for job-related stress.

Four separate cases were heard together by the Court of Appeal in order to give a clear and authoritative legal ruling on a burgeoning area of litigation. The TUC's own survey shows unions backed over 6000 stress cases last year, 12 times as many as the previous year.

In 3 of the cases, concerning two teachers and a factory worker, compensation awards totalling £208,000 were overturned. In the fourth, brought by a local authority administrative worker, a compensation award of £150,000 was upheld.

The Court of Appeal ruled:-

1. The ordinary principles of employers' liabilityapplied.

2. Therefore, the issue was whether an injury to health (as distinct from occupational stress), which was attributable to stress at work (as distinct from other

3. factors), to the claimant was reasonably foreseeable.
On foreseeability, an employer was usually entitled to assume an employee could stand the normal pressures of the job, unless the employer knew of some particular problem or vulnerability. The employer did not generally have to make searching enquiries of the employee.

4. There were no occupations which should be regarded as intrinsically dangerous to mental health. To trigger the employer's duty to take steps, the indications of impending harm to health from occupational stress had to be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise he should do something about it.

5. The employer would only be liable to the employee if he failed to take the steps which were reasonable in all the circumstances. These included the interests of other employees and the need to treat them fairly e.g. in any redistribution of duties. If the only reasonable and effective step would have been to dismiss or demote the employee, there would be no liability in

6. allowing a willing employee to continue in the job.
An employer who offered a confidential advice service, with referral to appropriate counselling or treatment services, was unlikely to be in breach of duty.

7. Where the harm suffered had more than one cause, the employer should only have to pay for that proportion of the harm caused by his breach of duty.

We welcome the ruling as setting a fair and clear benchmark for when employers will be liable to their employees for stress related injuries to health. It is, however, possible there may yet be a further appeal to the House of Lords.
This document is for general guidance and research purposes only, and does not purport to give professional advice. Please check the date at the top of the article; the Workplace Law Network retains historic articles for general research.