header-logo header-logo

15 March 2013 / Karen O’Sullivan
Issue: 7552 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Employment
printer mail-detail

Stressing the point

97766624_1

Karen O’Sullivan provides an update on cases involving breach of duty & non-tortious causes

Claims for personal injury arising from stress at work are difficult and complex, often with minute consideration of specific facts as to what the employer did or didn’t do. One complexity is the common scenario where other factors in the claimant’s life have contributed to the breakdown in mental health.

This issue was recently visited in the Court of Appeal case of Brown v London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames [2012] All ER (D) 278 (Nov), although the court failed to produce definitive guidance as to how to treat the interaction between the employer’s breach of duty and non-tortious causes (in Mr Brown’s case, his marriage breakdown).

Unfortunately we have two separate dicta on the issue which are explicitly different, both from the Court of Appeal, and both obiter. In Hatton v Sunderland [2002] 2 All ER 1, Hale LJ suggested that the court should consider first whether the employer’s breach of duty was such that absent the breach,

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll