Rayment v Ministry of Defence

Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires more than distress, annoyance or unreasonable conduct. The conduct must be targeted, objectively calculated to cause alarm or distress, and oppressive and unacceptable. The court may consider the claimant’s conduct and apparent robustness when assessing the character of the alleged harassment.

Deliberate, unfair employment measures designed to remove an employee may satisfy that test. A course of conduct may include separate acts which, viewed individually and cumulatively, cross the necessary threshold. For negligence, psychiatric injury must have been reasonably foreseeable in light of what the employer knew or ought to have known about the particular employee.

The claimant, an employee of the Ministry of Defence at the Honourable Artillery Company, claimed damages for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and negligence. She alleged bullying, victimisation and harassment by officers and staff between January 2004 and June 2005, causing psychiatric injury and loss of employment.

The claim concerned, among other matters, excessive working arrangements, offensive photographs in a military transport room, the handling of an administrative error affecting her appointment, a written warning and her subsequent administrative discharge. The central issues were whether the conduct amounted to harassment, whether psychiatric injury was caused by actionable conduct, and the appropriate damages.

1. Harassment test. The court adopted the formulation in Hammond v International Network Services [2007] EWHC 2604 (QB). The claimant had to establish conduct on at least two occasions, targeted at her, objectively calculated to cause alarm or distress, and objectively oppressive and unreasonable. The threshold was informed by Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1288 and Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46.
2. Ordinary workplace irritation, annoyance, robust language and regrettable conduct did not meet that threshold. The claimant’s own behaviour and apparent robustness could be taken into account. Most of the alleged incidents, including the working hours, disagreements and minor acts of discourtesy, were insufficient.
3. The defendant’s failure to remove pornographic photographs from the Military Transport restroom was oppressive and unacceptable. The photographs were offensive, the defendant controlled the room, and the claimant was the only full-time female driver using it at the material time.
4. The actions surrounding the claimant’s appointment on 17 May 2004, the final written warning and the June 2005 discharge were deliberate, unwarranted, unfair and wrong. They were undertaken for the purpose of removing the claimant from the Regiment and satisfied the harassment threshold.
5. The negligence claim was governed by the foreseeability approach in Hatton v Sutherland [2002] ICR 613. The claimant’s panic attack on 29 March 2004 represented a recurrence of her existing psychiatric disorder and was not caused by the defendant. The later employment measures caused injury and distress, but produced temporary exacerbations rather than a fundamental worsening of the underlying condition.
6. Judgment was entered for the claimant in damages. General damages were assessed at £5,500 and special damages at £1,060. No continuing loss of earnings was awarded.