header-logo header-logo

Stress alert!

30 October 2009 / Heather Platt
Issue: 7391 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Heather Platt provides an update on stress related case law

Stress has been described by the Court of Appeal as “an excess of demands upon an individual in excess of their ability to cope” (see Hatton v Sutherland and other appeals [2002] EWCA Civ 76, [2002] All ER (D) 53 (Feb)).

Stress is not a psychiatric injury: however it can lead to feelings of anxiety and depression or exacerbate other conditions such as dyslexia or epilepsy. Employers should be aware that employees may become disabled for the purposes of Disability Discrimination Act 1995, s 1.

The Court of Appeal felt that there are no occupations which should be regarded as intrinsically dangerous to mental health. Further, an employer is entitled to assume that an employee is able to withstand the ordinary pressures of the job and is generally entitled to take what he is told by his employee at face value, unless there is a good reason to think to the contrary.

Case law

The starting point is LJ Hale’s now well known guidelines in

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll