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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll