header-logo header-logo

Stressed out

When are employers responsible for workplace stress? Michelle Marnham investigates

Two recent cases examined the issue of when an employer is considered to be in breach of its duty to take reasonable care in relation to injury caused by stress at work. The first is Hiles v South Gloucestershire NHS Primary Care Trust [2006] EWHC 3418 (QB), [2007] All ER (D) 132 (Jan) in which Robert Moxon Browne QC—after considering the seminal decisions of Hatton v Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76, [2002] All ER 1 and the House of Lords in Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] UKHL 13, [2004] 2 All ER 385—found that the employer was in breach of its duty to Tina Hiles in respect of the psychiatric breakdown she suffered as a result of stress at work.

Hiles was employed by the defendant as a health visitor with responsibility for children. When she commenced employment she was told by her then manager that her workload should not exceed responsibility for 200 children. A new manager was sub-sequently appointed and Hiles’s workload increased to responsibility for 230–240 children. At a performance

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll