Hammond v International Network Services UK Ltd

Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires a targeted course of conduct on at least two occasions which is objectively calculated to cause alarm or distress and is oppressive and unreasonable. Irritating, upsetting or unreasonable workplace conduct is insufficient unless it reaches the necessary level of seriousness. Ordinary operational management decisions will not amount to harassment without evidence that they formed a deliberate, oppressive course of conduct. A workplace stress negligence claim additionally requires foreseeability of psychiatric injury, assessed by reference to what the employer knew or ought reasonably to have known about the employee’s vulnerability.

The claimant sued his former employer for damages for alleged harassment and negligence arising from events during two periods of employment in Dublin and on projects in England. He alleged that supervisors had humiliated him, obstructed his work, changed his accommodation and assignments, threatened his job security and interfered with holiday arrangements.

The defendant disputed the allegations and relied on contemporaneous documents showing operational and performance-related reasons for its decisions. The central issues were whether the alleged conduct occurred, whether it constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and whether psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable for the purposes of negligence.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant’s allegations were unsupported by reliable evidence and contradicted by the contemporaneous documents. The court found that the defendant’s witnesses were reliable and that the claimant was an unreliable witness.
2. Harassment requires conduct on at least two occasions, targeted at the claimant, objectively calculated to cause alarm or distress, and objectively oppressive and unreasonable. The conduct must have an element of real seriousness. Irritations, annoyances and ordinary upset do not suffice. The court adopted the summary in Green v DB Group Services [2006] EWHC 1899 (QB) and the objective approach identified in R v Collahan [2001] EWCA (Crim) 1251.
3. The alleged incidents involving Mr Kim were either not proved or represented reasonable managerial decisions concerning lateness, performance, accommodation and staffing. They did not form a deliberate course of conduct aimed at alarming or distressing the claimant. The alleged incidents involving Mr Page likewise concerned reasonable operational decisions, including temporary reassignment and transfer to a training laboratory. The alleged threatening telephone calls were found not to have occurred.
4. The negligence claim failed because the harassment allegations failed and, independently, there was no evidence that the defendant knew or ought reasonably to have known that the claimant was vulnerable to psychiatric injury. The court adopted the foreseeability approach in Sutherland v Hatton [2001] EWCA (Civ) 76.

The judgment was a first-instance decision. It records that the claimant’s separate unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim had been rejected by an Employment Tribunal, and that his appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal had also failed.