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

Forgotten your password?

Croft v Broadstairs & St Peter's Town Council, Court of Appeal, 23 April 2003

23 April 2003
The issues

Stress – foreseeability – psychiatric vulnerability

The facts

The Claimant was a former Town Clerk. She had a history of psychiatric injury illness. She had been in receipt of counselling. In November 1997 she was away from work. She had bronchitis. She was asked to come in to sign some accounts. She came in but said she would not sign because she needed time to consider them. At a sub committee meeting of the Town Council it was decided to give her a verbal warning which was sent to her under cover of a letter. The letter upset her and she became depressed.

The Town Council first decided to withdraw the letter but then in December confirmed it. The Claimant suffered a nervous breakdown. The Judge found for the Claimant on the basis that a former Mayor, part of the Town Council, knew through their relationship with a friend of the Claimant that the Claimant was psychiatrically vulnerable – in particular that she had been seeing a psychiatric nurse – and that therefore the Defendant had the necessary knowledge of the Claimant’s condition and had caused or materially contributed to the breakdown by its conduct. The Defendant argued that there was no evidence that the Defendant was aware of the Claimant’s condition and that the case was neither pleaded nor advanced on the basis of knowledge. The Defendant appealed.

The decision

1. As any other employer the Defendant was entitled to expect the Claimant to have the qualities of ordinary robustness.

2. In a person of ordinary robustness a nervous breakdown was not a foreseeable result of the circumstances.

3. The Claimant’s assertion that the former Mayor was aware that she had been receiving counselling was not enough to import knowledge on the behalf of the Defendant.

Appeal allowed.

Focus on...

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.


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.


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.


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