Barber v Somerset County Council

The court considered employer liability in negligence for a teacher's psychiatric illness said to be caused by stress at work. Key legal principles addressed were foreseeability of psychiatric harm, the relevance of what the employer knew or ought reasonably to have known about the particular employee, and the reasonable steps the employer should take once harm is foreseeable. The Court of Appeal's practical guidance on these matters (as set out in Hatton v Sutherland) was largely approved, including that an employer may generally assume an employee can withstand the normal pressures of the job unless informed otherwise and that foreseeability depends on the employer's knowledge of the particular employee. Applying those principles to the facts, the House of Lords held that the trial judge's finding that the school had breached its duty was supportable and restored the trial judgment in favour of the claimant. The court emphasised that where an employer knows an employee has been off for stress and the employee reports difficulty on return, the employer should at least make sympathetic inquiries and consider temporary adjustments; failure so to act can amount to breach if harm was foreseeable and remedial steps would probably have been effective.

The appellant, Mr Barber, a secondary school teacher, claimed damages for psychiatric injury (severe depressive illness) suffered following a mental breakdown in November 1996. He had taken three weeks' sick leave for stress and depression in May 1996, returned to work in June, and met separately with the head and deputy heads, telling them he was not coping. The trial judge found in Mr Barber's favour and awarded damages. The defendant employer (Somerset County Council) successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held there was no breach of duty; the leading Court of Appeal judgment (reported as Hatton v Sutherland) set out practical propositions about foreseeability and employer knowledge in work‑stress cases. Mr Barber appealed to the House of Lords.

(i) Nature of the claim: claim in negligence by an employee for psychiatric injury allegedly caused by the employer's failure to take reasonable steps after becoming aware of his stress and incapacity.

(ii) Issues framed:

• whether the employer ought reasonably to have foreseen a risk of psychiatric harm to this particular employee;
• what the employer knew or ought reasonably to have known about the claimant's vulnerability;
• what steps, if any, the employer could and should reasonably have taken; and
• whether the Court of Appeal was justified in substituting its view for the trial judge on the standard of care.

(iii) Reasoning and conclusion: the House reviewed primary facts (long hours, three weeks' certified sick leave for stress, meetings with senior management in June/July when the claimant said he was not coping, lack of meaningful follow up) and the legal propositions stated by the Court of Appeal. The House concluded that the trial judge was entitled to find the employer had notice of a risk to Mr Barber's mental health and failed to take reasonable investigatory or supportive steps (for example, sympathetic inquiries, temporary reduction of duties, or monitoring and escalation). The Court of Appeal had not shown sufficient reason to overturn the trial judge's evaluation of those findings, and the appeal was allowed, restoring judgment for the claimant (subject to agreed reduction in quantum).

Appeal allowed. The House held that, applying established principles about foreseeability and the reasonable employer, the trial judge was entitled to find the school had been in continuing breach of its duty after being put on notice (June/July 1996) and had failed to take reasonable investigatory and supportive steps which could have prevented the claimant's breakdown. The Court of Appeal was not justified in substituting its view of the standard of care on the facts.

County Court (Exeter) — Judge Roach: judgment for the claimant, 8 March 2001. Court of Appeal — composite judgment in Hatton v Sutherland, [2002] EWCA Civ 76: appeal allowed for the employer; trial judge's finding of breach reversed. House of Lords — appeal allowed, [2004] UKHL 13; trial judge's judgment restored (subject to agreed reduction in damages).