Abrahams v London Borough Of Waltham Forest

A claim for psychiatric injury arising from workplace stress requires proof of a recognised psychiatric illness, foreseeably likely to result from the work, and caused by the employer’s breach of duty. Stress alone is insufficient. An appellate court may interfere with a case-management discretion concerning an absent litigant only where the decision was plainly wrong. The court must balance accommodating a litigant in person against prejudice to the opposing party and the need for proceedings to conclude within a reasonable time.

The claimant applied for permission to appeal against the dismissal by the Central London County Court of claims against his employers for psychiatric and ankle injuries. The trial judge found that the ankle injury was caused by the claimant’s own actions, that he had no recognised psychiatric illness, and that psychiatric injury was not reasonably foreseeable.

During the five-day trial, the claimant left court after suffering a panic attack and did not return. His cross-examination of one witness was incomplete, another witness was not cross-examined, and he made no closing submissions. The central issues were whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success and whether the trial judge had acted unfairly or wrongly in continuing in the claimant’s absence.

1. Permission to appeal refused. On the material before the court, the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.
2. A claim for psychiatric injury caused by workplace stress cannot succeed without evidence of a recognised psychiatric illness. The illness must have been sufficiently foreseeable as a consequence of the work that a reasonable employer should have taken action. The illness must then be caused by the employer’s breach of duty. Allegations or proof of stress alone are insufficient.
3. The trial judge was entitled to accept the defendant’s psychiatric evidence where the claimant called no oral evidence to contradict it. The claimant’s expert report relied substantially on information supplied by the claimant and had originally been prepared for treatment rather than as an independent court report.
4. The ankle claim disclosed no realistic appeal point. The trial judge had concluded that the claimant injured himself while reaching over his desk, that his chair was not defective, and that he was responsible for organising his own workplace.
5. Although fairness to an unrepresented litigant may require accommodation where illness prevents normal participation, that accommodation is subject to the prejudice caused to the other party, the preparation already undertaken, the evidence already heard, and the difficulty of predicting when the litigant may be able to continue. The Court of Appeal could intervene in the trial judge’s discretion only if the decision was plainly wrong.
6. The application was dismissed, but the claimant was permitted to apply within 28 days for reconsideration of the refusal. Any resumed hearing required the claimant to attend or send an authorised representative, with notice to the respondent.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal refused, subject to the claimant making representations within 28 days.
• Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Medawar QC dismissed the claims for psychiatric and ankle injuries on 14 September 2001.