Hartman v South Essex Mental Health & Community Care NHS Trust

Claims for psychiatric injury caused by stress at work remain governed by ordinary employer’s liability principles. The claimant must establish that injury to health, attributable to work, was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances and that breach caused or materially contributed to it. No occupation is intrinsically dangerous to mental health, and [2002] 2 ALL ER 1 provides practical guidance rather than a statutory code. Individual warning signs are not required where the employer actually foresees a psychiatric risk from specified traumatic incidents. Confidential information disclosed to occupational health is not ordinarily imputed to the employer. The Hartman and Best appeals were allowed; the Wheeldon, Green, Moore and Melville appeals were dismissed. Apportionment requires clear evidence of a non-negligent cause of relevant loss.

The Court of Appeal heard six consecutive appeals concerning claims for psychiatric injury allegedly caused by stress at work. Four appeals were brought by defendant employers and two by claimants.

• Hartman: the Southend County Court awarded damages against the NHS Trust.
• Best: the Telford County Court found the university liable.
• Wheeldon: the Chesterfield County Court awarded damages against the bank.
• Green: the Great Grimsby County Court dismissed the claim.
• Moore: the High Court found the employer liable but granted permission to appeal only on damages.
• Melville: the High Court dismissed the Home Office’s appeal against a preliminary ruling on foreseeability.

The central issues were foreseeability, employer knowledge, breach, causation, the effect of occupational-health procedures, and apportionment of damages where psychiatric vulnerability or non-negligent stressors existed.

General principles

The court held that ordinary employer-liability principles apply to psychiatric injury caused by workplace stress. The claimant must prove foreseeable injury to health attributable to work, breach of duty, and causation. No occupation is intrinsically dangerous to mental health. The guidance in Hatton v Sutherland [2002] 2 ALL ER 1 is practical and fact-sensitive, rather than a statutory code. Individual warning signs are not essential where the employer actually foresees a risk of psychiatric injury from specified traumatic incidents.

1. Hartman. The trial judge wrongly treated caring work as requiring a higher level of alertness. Confidential medical information disclosed to the Trust’s occupational-health department could not be attributed to the Trust in the absence of a proper basis for disclosure. Nine years of apparently trouble-free employment outweighed the historic information. The accident, the unused counselling offer, generic complaints about overwork, and psychiatric problems suffered by other staff did not establish that injury to Mrs Hartman was foreseeable. The appeal was allowed and the judgment set aside.
2. Best. The finding of foreseeability was undermined by material factual errors, including the date of the promotion application, and was contrary to the weight of the evidence. There were no sufficient indications of impending harm. The availability of counselling was relevant, and expert evidence was needed to establish that additional administrative support was likely to help. The appeal was allowed.
3. Wheeldon. The bank had actual knowledge, through its occupational-health department, of the connection between Mrs Wheeldon’s depression and her work. Failure to act on medical recommendations, discuss available options, and keep the occupational-health process open constituted breach and caused an identifiable psychiatric injury. The appeal was dismissed, including the award of two years’ loss of earnings.
4. Green. The memorandum referring to an effect on health required a considered response. The editor’s consultation with colleagues and proposed meeting were reasonable. The suggested confrontation and immediate collapse were unsupported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
5. Moore. Apportionment applies to loss of earnings as well as general damages, but the employer bears the burden of proving a sufficient non-negligent contribution. The equivocal medical evidence and closely connected stressors did not justify a reduction. The appeal was dismissed.
6. Melville. The Home Office had foreseen psychiatric risk to staff exposed to specified prison suicides and had devised a support system. The absence of individual pre-incident symptoms did not defeat foreseeability. Any failure to implement the system and the issue of causation remained for trial. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). In [2005] EWCA Civ 6, the Hartman and Best appeals were allowed. The Wheeldon, Green, Moore and Melville appeals were dismissed.
• Southend County Court. Judge Dedman awarded Mrs Hartman damages against South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust.
• Telford County Court. Mr Recorder Evans entered judgment on liability for Mr Best against Staffordshire University.
• Chesterfield County Court. Judge Waine awarded Mrs Wheeldon damages against HSBC Bank Ltd.
• Great Grimsby County Court. Mrs Recorder Stocken dismissed Mr Green’s claim against Grimsby & Scunthorpe Newspapers Ltd.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division. Judge Crawford QC found Welwyn Components Ltd liable in Mr Moore’s claim; permission to appeal was granted only on damages. Mr Justice Jack dismissed the Home Office’s appeal against the preliminary foreseeability ruling in Mr Melville’s claim.