Pratley v Surrey County Council

On renewal of permission to appeal, permission should be granted where the proposed challenge raises at least an arguable ground for consideration by the full court. An apparent tension in the lower court’s findings may meet that threshold. A finding that an employee could reasonably expect an agreed workload-reduction arrangement to operate on her return was difficult to reconcile with a finding that the employer had no reason to realise that action was required by that date. Permission was granted without determining the negligence claim.

The claimant, a case manager employed by Surrey County Council, alleged that the council’s negligence caused a serious psychiatric illness after a workload-reduction arrangement known as stacking was not implemented during her absence.

Buckley J found that the illness existed and was caused at least partly by the failure to implement the arrangement. He nevertheless held that the employer had no reason to know of the risk of psychiatric illness until a meeting on 21 August, and that it would be unreal to require action by the claimant’s return from holiday. The claimant renewed her application for permission to appeal, arguing that these findings were inconsistent. The central issue was whether that contention disclosed an arguable ground for consideration by the full court.

1. Permission granted. Lord Justice Longmore granted the renewed application for permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal did not determine whether the council was negligent or whether the claim ultimately succeeded.
2. The claimant had an arguable ground because the lower court’s findings appeared difficult to reconcile. The evidence indicated that the claimant’s concerns about her health had been raised at the 21 August meeting, that the manager agreed to inform a superior that new cases would be stacked, and that it would have been reasonable for the claimant to expect stacking to be implemented on her return.
3. Against that, the judge had held that there was no reason for the manager or council to realise that action had to be taken by the claimant’s return. That tension was sufficient to justify consideration by the full court, even though Longmore LJ expressed limited enthusiasm for granting permission.
4. A transcript of the manager’s evidence was required for the appeal. The proposed appeal was to be listed for one to one and a half days before three judges, with the possibility of including a High Court judge. The claimant’s costs of the permission application were to be assessed in accordance with the legal aid regulations.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On renewal of the application, permission to appeal was granted on the proposed grounds. The matter was directed to a full court.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Buckley J dismissed the claimant’s claim, while finding that she had suffered a serious psychiatric illness caused at least partly by the failure to implement the workload-reduction arrangement.