Harding v Pub Estate Company Ltd

In a work-related stress claim, an employer’s duty to take reasonable steps arises only when indications of impending harm to the employee’s physical or mental health are sufficiently clear for a reasonable employer to realise that action is required. General complaints about stress, long hours or difficult working conditions do not necessarily provide that warning. The court must identify precisely what the employee communicated, to whom and when. The principle applies to physical injury, including a heart attack, as well as psychiatric injury. Where no sufficiently clear warning was given, breach of duty is not established and causation need not be determined.

The claimant, an experienced publican, suffered a heart attack after managing premises in a difficult area while working long hours. He alleged that his former employers negligently exposed him to excessive work-related stress and failed to respond to his complaints and requests for assistance.

After a liability hearing in Preston County Court, His Honour Judge Gee found the employers liable. The employers appealed. They accepted that the judge had directed himself correctly on the law and did not challenge his preference for the claimant’s evidence, but argued that the evidence did not establish sufficient notice of a foreseeable risk to the claimant’s health. The central issue was whether the claimant had communicated a sufficiently clear warning of impending harm requiring reasonable protective steps.

1. Appeal allowed. Scott Baker LJ, with whom Wilson J agreed, held that the claimant’s claim failed because no breach of duty was established. Judgment was entered for the defendant and the claimant was ordered to pay the costs of the action and the appeal, subject to detailed assessment.

2. The governing principles for work-related stress claims apply equally where the injury is physical rather than psychiatric. The relevant distinction is between indications of stress and indications of impending harm to health. A duty to take reasonable steps is triggered only when the employee’s communications, or information from the employee’s doctor, make the risk of physical or mental breakdown sufficiently clear to a reasonable employer. This was consistent with the approach in Hatton v Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76.

3. The trial judge was required to analyse the evidence precisely. He had to identify what the claimant said, to whom and when, and decide whether those communications placed the employers on notice of a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury. A general preference for the claimant’s evidence did not resolve that issue.

4. The claimant’s complaints were principally about the pub’s clientele, neighbourhood, working conditions and long hours. He was an experienced manager, had no known special vulnerability, had sufficient staff, and had not complained to his doctor or employers in clear terms about an impending risk to his health. The medical records showed earlier stress-related symptoms and long hours, but later recorded improvement, holidays and no continuing warning of a heart attack or psychiatric breakdown. The evidence therefore did not establish the necessary warning.

5. Causation was not decided because breach failed. Scott Baker LJ nevertheless expressed serious doubt whether any breach could have materially contributed to the heart attack, given the claimant’s control over his hours, his acceptance that staffing was sufficient, and the experts’ focus on environmental stressors.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal from Preston County Court allowed on 11 May 2005. The claimant’s claim was dismissed and judgment was entered for the defendant.
2. Preston County Court — His Honour Judge Gee found the employers liable for the claimant’s personal injury at a hearing between 5 and 7 January 2004 and handed down judgment on 6 February 2004.