0370 270 6000

Claimant alleges injury to mental health caused by work related stress.

21 September 2000
The issues


The facts

Claimant alleges injury to mental health caused by work related stress.

The decision

Following White -v- Chief Constable South Yorkshire Police the Claimant had to show that he had suffered from a recognised psychiatric illness not merely an emotional reaction to the events or conduct in question. Such injury had to be reasonable foreseeable as a consequence of the act or remission complained off. On the case of an employment stress case it was necessary for the Claimant to show that some injury was reasonable foreseeable to persons in the same class of employment as the Claimant or alternatively that it was necessary to show that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the pursuer if the pursuer had a known propensity to suffering psychiatric injuries in certain circumstances. See Walker -v- Northumberland County Council.

It was crucial to recognise that the duty involved was not one not to cause stress but was one not to cause recognised psychiatric illness. Accordingly foreseeability had a part to play.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up