Vahidi v Fairstead House School Trust Ltd

An employer’s duty in an occupational-stress claim is assessed by identifying the alleged act or omission, determining duty and breach, and then considering causation. A supportive return-to-work regime, structured monitoring and reasonable assistance will not ordinarily amount to breach merely because the employer does not make continuous health enquiries. Where an employee remains under medical supervision and reports an impending review, seeking further medical advice may be intrusive. The duty does not ordinarily require an employer to send home or dismiss an employee who presents as fit and wishes to work. If breach is not established, causation need not be decided. The appeal was dismissed unanimously.

The claimant, a reception-class teacher, brought a stress-at-work claim against her employer after suffering depressive illness and a later relapse following her return to work. The High Court, presided over by His Honour Judge Wilkie QC, dismissed the claim, finding that the employer’s conduct did not breach its duty of care. The first breakdown was not challenged on appeal.

The appeal concerned whether the employer should have provided further health-related support, obtained additional medical assistance, or sent the claimant home when her condition appeared to deteriorate. The central issue was whether any of those alleged omissions constituted breach of duty and caused the relapse.

Disposition. Lord Justice Longmore delivered the judgment of the court. Lord Justices Ward and Scott Baker agreed. The appeal was dismissed, with the costs of the appeal to be assessed if not agreed.

1. Applicable approach. The claimant had to identify what the employer did which it ought not to have done, or failed to do which it ought to have done. The court had to determine duty, breach and causation. The judge below had considered the alleged breaches separately and had reached conclusions with which the Court of Appeal agreed.
2. Support and monitoring. There was no general failure to support the claimant. The employer had arranged a phased return, structured support meetings, assistance in the classroom and monitoring of the claimant’s work. It was not required to make continuous enquiries about her health. The evidence showed reasonable support and no attempt to set the claimant up to fail.
3. Further medical assistance. The claimant remained under medical supervision, had recently consulted Dr Webb, had been advised to resume medication and had a further medical review arranged. Her account had to be taken at face value in those circumstances. Seeking another medical opinion without a proper basis could have been intrusive and could have conveyed that the employer did not believe her. The court applied the relevant reasoning in Hatton v Sutherland [2002] 2 All ER 1. Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] UKHL 13 was distinguishable because the employer in that case had shown no comparable wish to assist.
4. Sending the claimant home. The employer was not in breach merely because it allowed an employee who presented herself as fit and wished to work to continue working. Sending her home could have been perceived as hostile and could itself have precipitated a relapse. The court applied the principle discussed in Hatton that the law should not ordinarily require an employer to remove an employee from work for the employee’s own protection.
5. Causation. Since no breach was established, it was unnecessary to decide causation. The court nevertheless observed, obiter, that even if one of the alleged breaches had been proved, it was problematic whether compliance would have prevented the relapse.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the claimant’s appeal unanimously and ordered that the costs of the appeal be assessed if not agreed.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, presided over by His Honour Judge Wilkie QC, dismissed the claimant’s stress-at-work claim.