PI Brief Update

Bullying, Confused Perceptions and Stress Claims - Liam Ryan, Ely Place Chambers

18/08/14. In stress claims where there is evidence that an employer was on express notice of an employee’s stress related condition (e.g. such as by emails, letters, appraisals and minutes), the law is relatively clear. However, there was less clarity as to how the courts would deal with stress claims where the Claimant sought to recover for psychiatric injury. Light has since been thrown on the issue by the judgment in Daniel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2578 (QB) (handed down on 28 July 2014).

The facts

The facts of the claim were complex but can usefully be summarised as follows. The Claimant alleged that in the course of her employment with the Defendant she suffered occupational stress that developed into a psychiatric condition, causing her in turn to suffer serious and continuing mental illness. It was agreed by the parties that the Claimant had a pre-existing history of bipolar disorder with a very high rate of recurrence and that this condition was unknown to the Defendant.

The Claimant's employment required her to lead, manage and develop her employer’s research strategies in the field of cancer treatment within the NHS. Professor Gabra, the Claimant’s superior (the individual whom the Claimant pinpointed as the catalyst of her breakdown), headed the development of a broad programme of cancer research. The research did not just include approved NHS studies but also commercial studies too. Professor Gabra wanted research resources pooled together in a manner he phrased as “working without walls”. The Claimant fundamentally disagreed with the concept of this, primarily because she passionately believed that the use of NHS resources on private commercial trials was morally wrong...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/shapecharge

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...