Green v DB Group Services (UK) Ltd.

An employer may be liable in negligence for psychiatric injury caused by workplace bullying where the conduct, viewed cumulatively, creates a foreseeable risk of psychiatric harm and reasonable protective steps were not taken. Foreseeability depends on what the employer knew or ought to have known about the employee, including any particular vulnerability.

Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires conduct on at least two occasions which is targeted, objectively calculated to cause distress, and objectively oppressive and unreasonable. An employer may be vicariously liable where the employee’s conduct is closely connected with the employment.

The claimant, formerly employed by the defendant bank, claimed damages for psychiatric injury, consequential loss and damage arising from alleged workplace bullying and harassment. She relied principally on negligence and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The claim concerned three periods: bullying by female colleagues, a sustained campaign by another employee involving interference with her work, and the defendant’s handling of her return to work. The central issues were whether the conduct occurred, whether psychiatric injury was foreseeable, whether the defendant was vicariously liable or had breached its own duty of care, and whether the conduct caused the claimant’s depressive illnesses.

1. The claimant succeeded in negligence and under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in respect of the first two periods. The conduct was a cumulative and concerted campaign of bullying and harassment.

2. Applying the approach in Barlow v Borough of Broxbourne [2003] EWHC 50 (QB), the court considered the cumulative conduct, the perpetrators’ knowledge, the reasonable steps available to prevent harm, and the connection with employment.

3. The conduct satisfied the statutory requirements. It occurred frequently, was targeted at the claimant, was objectively calculated to cause distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable. The defendant was vicariously liable because the conduct was closely connected with the employees’ work. The defendant also breached its direct duty of care by failing to intervene despite longstanding knowledge of the problem.

4. Psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable. The claimant’s disclosed history of depression and prescribed medication made her more vulnerable than the population generally. The bullying and harassment materially contributed to both depressive episodes. The isolated incident involving another employee was not independently actionable, although it was causally relevant.

5. The defendant did not breach its duty in managing the claimant’s return to work. The second breakdown was triggered by an email, but the claimant’s increased psychiatric vulnerability resulted from the earlier actionable conduct.

6. Damages were assessed by reference to two major depressive episodes, increased vulnerability, lost career, future disadvantage in the labour market and financial loss. General damages were £35,000 and the Smith and Manchester award was £25,000. Further submissions were invited on the detailed calculation of past and future losses.

First instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated.