0370 270 6000

Pratley v Surrey County Council, Queen's Bench Division, 31 July 2002

13 August 2002
The issues

Stress – psychiatric injury – social services.

The facts

The Claimant had worked for Surrey County Council since 1986 and at the time she left employment, was working in the Social Services Department as a Case Manager for the Elderly. Before working for the Council, she had qualified as a Nurse and worked both in the RAF and at Leatherhead Cottage Hospital. Her Line Manager was Mrs Elrick who was Locality Care Manager in Leatherhead. The Claimant\’s job entailed assessing clients and their needs and formulating a plan if relevant. She would arrange the appropriate services and equipment. The plan might involve care at home in the community, or in a home. Care at home or in the community involved more active management than when a client was cared for in a home. Mrs Elrick accepted that in the Social Services money was not available to provide the services demanded to the level that Social Workers and public expected and that this led to pressure on staff and that such pressures could lead to stress. She accepted that undue stress created a risk of injury to health. The Claimant argued that she had twice (in March and August 1996) warned of the injury to her health if nothing was done to lighten her burden and that Mrs Elrick had promised to introduce a new system but had failed to honour that promise by September and that that failure was a substantial cause of her illness.

The Defendant argued that there was nothing to put the Council on notice of a particular risk to the Claimant’s health before August 1996. The Claimant had had two weeks off in March 1996 and had hidden the fact that the cause might have been stress related. The meeting that she had had with Mrs Elrick did not put the Council on notice the Defendants argued, that action had to be taken in particular stacking in order to avoid a real risk of injury. Moreover, the Defendant said that the Council provided access to a confidential stress counselling service, occupational health facilities and a private health scheme through BUPA. Mrs Elrick had regularly documented meetings with Mrs Pratley to monitor and discuss problems.

The decision

Following Hatton:-

1. There was a crucial difference that Hatton had made plain between knowledge that pressure and stress at work could lead to injury and specific knowledge that a real risk has arisen in a particular case.

2. The Claimant had been particularly concerned that the Council should not become aware that she was stressed, let alone suffering work related health problems. The Council had had no reason before the August supervision meeting to anticipate injury to her health.

3. The Claimant had not seen fit to go to her own GP, the Occupational Health Department or the counselling services available at that time.

4. Mrs Elrick was aware of the need to consider reorganisation of the Claimant\’s work, but it was reasonable for her to see how things were going on the return from holiday of the Claimant before taking specific action. The Claimant herself had thought that her 3-week holiday would sort her out.

Judgment for the Defendant.

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