Paterson v Surrey Police Authority

In claims for psychiatric injury caused by working conditions, foreseeability is not established merely because an employee works more than 48 hours per week or lacks statutory rest periods. The Working Time Regulations 1998 provide relevant context but do not create an automatic presumption of psychiatric risk. The question remains whether injury to health caused by work-related stress was reasonably foreseeable for the particular employee, having regard to the information available to the employer and the circumstances of the work. The employer is liable only if it failed to take reasonable steps which were likely to prevent harm and the breach caused or materially contributed to the illness. An employer has no general duty to provide alternative accommodation simply because accommodation supplied for the better performance of employment has become unwelcome.

The claimant had been employed by the defendant for many years as Estate Manager at Surrey Police headquarters. He lived on the site and undertook ordinary duties together with out-of-hours stand-by responsibilities. He developed a psychiatric illness in September 2004 and claimed damages, alleging excessive working hours, inadequate rest, failure to assess health risks and failure to provide accommodation away from the site.

The defendant denied reasonable foreseeability and causation. It contended that the operative cause of the illness was the claimant’s frustration about the failure to obtain satisfactory off-site accommodation, rather than his working conditions. The issues included the effect of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

1. Claim dismissed. The defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that the claimant would suffer psychiatric injury caused by work-related stress.
2. The practical guidelines in Hatton v Sunderland [2002] ICR 613 were useful but did not create a statutory or automatic rule. The fact that working hours exceeded 48 hours in some weeks, or that time spent on stand-by might count as working time, did not by itself establish foreseeability. The relevant inquiry remained the particular employee, the information known to the employer, the likelihood of being called out, the inconvenience caused and the effect on health.
3. The Working Time Regulations 1998 were relevant background to the assessment of risk, but a breach did not itself establish that psychiatric injury was foreseeable. The claimant’s recorded average hours did not exceed 48 hours over the relevant reference periods, and his stand-by arrangements did not establish a psychiatric risk without more specific warning signs.
4. The requirements of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 did not assist the claim. The discussions about reducing stand-by duties could constitute an informal assessment under Regulation 3, but any failure to make a formal assessment was not causative. Appropriate mechanisms for health surveillance were also in place.
5. The claimant’s long history of performing the duties without complaint, his presentation as fit and willing to continue, and the absence of disclosure of stress or relevant symptoms were powerful factors against foreseeability. The 1991 stress material was too remote.
6. The evidence of Professor Fahy was preferred. The operative cause of the breakdown was the claimant’s perception of how the defendant had dealt with his wish for alternative accommodation. The defendant owed no duty to provide such accommodation, and therefore could not be liable for the manner in which it responded to that request.

The action failed and was dismissed.