0370 270 6000

Witham v Hastings & Rother NHS Trust, High Court

3 December 2001
The issues

“Stress” – Psychiatric illness following return to work.

The facts

The Claimant was a Senior Nurse. She had been in charge of a ward at Bexhill hospital. She had post-natal depression. She had eight months sick leave. She returned to work in March 1996. Her employers told her that her return would be “gradual” and she would have “a lot of support”. At the time she returned a major re-organisation of wards was taking place. The Claimant was left to supervise the movement of a number of patients to a new 50-bed ward at the hospital. She was also left to take charge of the new and larger ward on her own with no managerial or senior nursing support. She worked long hours until December 1996 when she suffered a further bout of depression and was absent from work for two months. She returned but became more ill still. In mid-1997 she suffered a major breakdown of her health and was absent from work until she was dismissed in May 1998.

The decision

1. The Claimant had been promised a gentle return but had been given no such thing.

2. Defendants had not made any reasonable inquiries about her continuing state of health although they knew of her previous depression and ability to stress. It ought reasonably foreseen that a lack of proper care might cause the Claimant further ill health.

3. Because of pre-existing depression the Claimant would probably be absent from work from time to time for about one third of her working life after 1998 and would not have received further promotion. She was 41. An appropriate multiplier would be 7.5 reduced from 9 or 10.

General damages of £17,500 for a moderately severe psychiatric illness were awarded.

The Claimant who was a Grade G nurse but was now working at Grade D was entitled to an additional award of £7,500 for loss of status.

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.

View

Blogs

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.

View

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.

View

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

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