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?

Mullen v Accenture Services Ltd, High Court, 16 July 2010

1 November 2010
The issues

Stress at work – bullying – foreseeability – management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

The facts

The Claimant worked for a firm of management consultants on a computer project. He said he had suffered stress at work, victimisation and bullying by his line manager. He had a history of psychological vulnerability which was unknown to his employer. He was assigned to a particular project. Before the project began the employer carried out a risk assessment, pursuant to the management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, Regulation 3. Stress levels were assessed as “tolerable”. As the project progressed, over a 2 month period, the Claimant alleged that he was humiliated in front of other members of staff, shouted at and sworn at regularly by his line manager, made to work long hours and put under immense pressure. As a result he suffered a mental breakdown. He claimed damages, alleging victimisation and bullying, causing psychiatric injury as a result of stress at work and in particular alleged that the employer was in breach of Regulation 3 by failing to carry out a review as the stress levels increased after the project went live and that consequently, once there was a proven breach it was unnecessary to prove foreseeability.

The decision

The Claimant believed he had been bullied. Following the decision in H v Isle of Wight, the Court had to go beyond the Claimant’s perception. It was not right to assess what did or did not amount to bullying solely by regard to the victim’s subjective perception. An objective assessment of the observed behaviour was necessary, taken in conjunction with any apparent vulnerability in the target of the behaviour complained of. Blunt language and inappropriate banter may have been used, but the motivation was solely the desire to achieve the best for the project. The Claimant was not at the receiving end of genuinely offensive and unacceptable behaviour. There might be a fine line between strong management and bullying but viewing the evidence objectively, that line had not been crossed.

It could not be right that if there was a breach of Regulation 3, it was not necessary to prove that any particular harm was foreseeable. If that were the case, the clear cut law on causation would be bypassed. Following Barber v Somerset County Council, there had to be foreseeability on the part of the employer in respect of a particular illness suffered by the particular employee. In this case there had not been bullying, and even if there had been, there had been no real warning signs of impending harm.

Claim dismissed.

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