Young v The Post Office

An employer who knows that an employee has suffered psychiatric illness caused by occupational stress must take reasonable steps to prevent a recurrence when the employee returns to work. A flexible arrangement may be reasonable, but the employer must implement it effectively and monitor whether the agreed safeguards are being followed. It is insufficient simply to leave a known vulnerable employee to decide whether work has again become excessive. Where the employee is conscientious, vulnerable and has previously made complaints that were not acted upon, failure to speak up will not necessarily amount to contributory negligence.

The Post Office appealed from a decision of Mr Recorder Jack in the Barnsley County Court, which found it liable for psychiatric injury suffered by Maurice Young after a recurrence of depression following his return to work. The claim concerned the employer’s handling of a seven-week period during which Mr Young was expected to resume work gradually after a four-month absence. The Recorder found that agreed safeguards were not implemented and that unsuitable work, including attendance at a course and responsibility for the workshop during a colleague’s holiday, contributed to the recurrence. The appeal challenged liability, contributory negligence and the costs order.

Appeal dismissed. After an employee had suffered psychiatric illness caused by occupational stress, a recurrence on returning to work was plainly foreseeable to employers who knew of that history. The employers therefore owed a duty to take appropriate protective steps.

1. The proposed flexible return-to-work arrangement was capable of being reasonable. Nevertheless, the Recorder was entitled to find a breach because the employers failed to implement the safeguards they had established. Managers did not know what work Mr Young was doing, allowed him to attend an unsuitable course, and allowed him to run the workshop during a colleague’s absence.
2. The Court distinguished Walker v Northumberland County Council, [1995] 1 AllER 737. The present case was factually less strong because special arrangements had been made, but the failure to carry them through nevertheless justified the finding of breach.
3. Contributory negligence was not established. A known vulnerable employee is not necessarily responsible for recurrent psychiatric illness merely because he does not say that work is again becoming too much. Mr Young’s conscientiousness, vulnerability and previous ignored complaints entitled the Recorder to reject the defence.
4. The Recorder had a discretion to award costs in full. The allegations which succeeded were covered in general terms by the pleaded particulars, and the appellants showed no relevant prejudice or saving from more specific pleading.

Sutherland v Hatton, [2002] EWCA Civ 76, supplied relevant guidance on foreseeability, vulnerability and the steps an employer could and should have taken.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the Post Office’s appeal from the judgment of Mr Recorder Jack.
• Barnsley County Court: found the Post Office liable and awarded damages of £93,880.79 inclusive of interest, with costs subject to detailed assessment.