0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Armstrong v Secretary of State for the Home Department

16 October 2001
The issues

Psychiatric Injury – Reasonable foreseeable risk.

The facts

The Claimant was a Prison Officer there were three Officers involved in the supervision of Rosemary West. She had been required to spend time with West during which she had been actively encouraged to establish a close relationship to prevent West from committing suicide. She alleged she had not been supervised in this task and had become too closely involved, and had come to believe that West was innocent losing her objectivity. She alleged she had developed a post-traumatic stress disorder when West was convicted.

The decision

1. The Claimant had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and all the symptoms were attributable to her relationship with West.

2. Three questions were to be asked:-

(i) Whether her work created a reasonably foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury.

(ii) Whether the system of work was reasonable.

(iii) If the answer to the first question was ‘yes’ and the second ‘no’, had the failure to adopt a reasonable system caused the injury.

As a fact it was found that she had not been encouraged to form a relationship with West and her request to go to Court was a normal part of her duties. There were no features of her work given rise to a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury, notwithstanding that the unusual regime was inherently stressful to some extent. Attempts however have been made to deal with this by ensuring that there were always two Officers on duty and that there were substantial breaks between shifts.

focus on...

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.

View

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

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