Pakenham-Walsh v Connell Residential & Anor

Claims for psychiatric injury caused by work stress are governed by ordinary employer’s liability principles. The threshold question is whether injury to the particular employee, attributable to work stress, was reasonably foreseeable. Foreseeability depends on the employer’s knowledge, the nature of the work and clear signs of impending harm. An employer may generally assume that an employee can withstand normal job pressures. Failures under the Working Time Regulations 1998, including inadequate records, inform the assessment but do not by themselves establish breach. Appellate courts should respect findings of fact and fact-sensitive foreseeability conclusions unless the judge misdirected himself or reached a conclusion unavailable on the evidence.

The appellant appealed from the dismissal by His Honour Judge Geddes at Worcester County Court on 24 May 2004 of her claim against her employers and a manager. She alleged psychiatric injury caused by excessive working hours, inadequate support, bullying and insulting conduct, founded on negligence and implied contractual duties. She sought remission for rehearing, alleging errors in the factual findings, inadequate consideration of evidence and failure to apply the proper duty of care. The central issues were causation, reasonable foreseeability, breach of duty and whether the first-instance judgment was sufficiently reasoned.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Pill gave the judgment of the court, with Lord Justices Keene and Lloyd agreeing.

1. Findings of fact and causation. The trial lasted almost two weeks and the judge had the opportunity to assess the appellant, the second respondent and the central witnesses. The omission of express references to some evidence did not show that the essential factual issues had been ignored. The judge was entitled to prefer the respondents’ evidence and Dr Bond’s medical evidence. The appellant’s personal difficulties provided an alternative explanation for the psychiatric injury.
2. Employer’s duty. Applying the practical guidance in Hatton v Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76, claims for psychiatric injury from work stress are governed by ordinary employer’s liability principles. The particular injury must be reasonably foreseeable, the employer must have failed to take reasonable steps, and the breach must have caused or materially contributed to the injury. The judge was entitled to find that the work was not particularly demanding, that additional days were worked voluntarily, and that there were no complaints, absences, warnings or behavioural signs indicating impending harm. The duty to take steps was therefore not triggered.
3. Working time. The Working Time Regulations 1998 supplied a relevant standard and favourable background for assessing the employer’s conduct. The absence of compliant records was deplorable, but neither that failure nor the working patterns established breach of duty without consideration of all the circumstances.
4. Appellate restraint and reasons. The approach in Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] ICR 457 and Hone v Six Continents Retail Limited [2005] EWCA Civ 922 supported restraint in reviewing fact-based findings and foreseeability conclusions. A judgment may have benefited from fuller treatment of the evidence, but its brevity did not justify remission where the essential issues had been considered and the reasoning was sufficient. The dismissal of the claims was upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed: [2006] EWCA Civ 90.
• Worcester County Court: His Honour Judge Geddes dismissed the appellant’s claim for damages for psychiatric injury on 24 May 2004.