Merelie v Newcastle Primary Care Trust

On an application under CPR Part 24, the court asks whether the claimant has a real prospect of succeeding, not whether the claim can be finally tried on paper. Expert agreement that workplace events did not cause a recognised psychiatric or physical injury justified summary judgment on that aspect of a personal-injury claim. It did not necessarily defeat contractual claims for mental distress or injury to reputation, or claims for damages whose legal scope remained uncertain. Foreseeability could not be determined summarily where the pleadings and evidence, including earlier work-related stress, arguably supported knowledge of a risk of injury. The application was dismissed.

The claimant brought related proceedings against her former employer. One action included claims in defamation and harassment; the other claimed damages for personal injury and losses arising from alleged breaches of contract and negligence connected with workplace events.

The Trust applied under CPR Part 24 for summary judgment on causation, foreseeability and, later, special damages. The medical experts agreed that the claimant had an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder with anxiety, but considered that her difficulties were lifelong and innate rather than caused by workplace events. The central questions were whether the claim could proceed despite that evidence, whether injury was foreseeable, and whether loss of earnings and pension loss could be summarily excluded.

1. Summary-judgment test. The court applied Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91: an application under CPR Part 24 is not a summary trial. The issue is whether the claim has sufficient merit to proceed.
2. Causation and injury. On the evidence then available, the claimant had no real prospect of proving that the alleged breaches caused a recognised psychiatric or physical injury. The experts’ clarified opinions supported that conclusion. The evidence nevertheless gave her a real prospect of proving mental distress and injury to reputation. Those matters could remain relevant to contractual and harassment claims.
3. Contractual claim. The Trust accepted that recognised physical or psychiatric injury was not necessarily a condition of succeeding on the alleged breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, referable to Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 20. The uncertain scope of damages made summary determination of special damages inappropriate.
4. Foreseeability. The claimant’s pleaded six-month absence from work and statements made to the Trust by Dr Harrison could support foreseeability of injury or illness. A witness’s assertion that she had not expected harm was not conclusive on an application under CPR Part 24. The court declined to decide the issue summarily.
5. Harassment. Following Baron v CPS and Spencer v Sillitoe [2003] EMLR 10, lawful disciplinary or litigation procedures may amount to harassment where abused for an ulterior purpose, but such cases are exceptional and fact-sensitive.
6. The summary-judgment application was dismissed. The claimant was directed to explain how the claimed special damages were caused by the complained-of acts or omissions.

First-instance pre-trial review. The judgment records earlier interlocutory decisions by Eady J in related proceedings, including [2004] EWHC 2554 (QB), but this was not an appeal from that decision.