Whiteside v London Borough of Croydon

An employer may be liable in contract for work-related psychiatric injury where harmful stress was reasonably foreseeable and the employer failed to take reasonable steps to protect the employee’s health. Foreseeability depends on the employer’s knowledge of the employee’s vulnerability, working conditions, workload, warnings and other indications of impending harm. A claimant must establish a recognised psychiatric injury, a material contribution from work-related stress, breach of duty and causation. Where an employee has a pre-existing susceptibility, the employer remains liable if its breaches materially triggered the illness and the injury would probably have been avoided by reasonable protective measures.

The claimant worked for the defendant local authority and suffered recurrent depressive illness after prolonged difficulties involving workload, management, project responsibilities and workplace support. He ceased work in October 2004 and later resigned. His constructive-dismissal claim in the Employment Tribunal had been dismissed, but the tribunal made findings relevant to the subsequent claim.

In the High Court, the claimant sought damages for alleged breaches of contractual, statutory and common-law duties, alleging that the defendant’s conduct caused occupational stress and psychiatric injury. Liability was tried separately from quantum. The central issues were whether the claimant suffered psychiatric injury, whether work was a substantial cause, whether the injury was foreseeable, whether the defendant breached its duties, and whether reasonable steps could have avoided the injury.

1. Outcome. Judgment was entered for the claimant on liability. Damages were to be assessed separately.
2. The claimant suffered recurrent major depressive disorder. Although he had an underlying susceptibility, the evidence established that work-related stress substantially triggered the recurrence in October 2004. The pressures arising from the Prologis appeal, excessive workload, inadequate direction, lack of support and deteriorating working conditions materially increased the risk of recurrence.
3. The applicable principles were those summarised from Sutherland v Hatton [2002] EWCA Civ 76, as approved in Barber v Sutherland [2004] UKHL 13. The relevant inquiry concerned foreseeability of injury to this particular employee, the employer’s knowledge of his vulnerability, the nature and extent of the work, warnings of impending harm, and whether reasonable protective steps should have been taken.
4. From late 1999 onwards, the defendant knew or ought to have known that the claimant required a carefully managed workload, clear priorities and protection from excessive stress. His repeated warnings, earlier stress-related illness, job reviews, the departmental risk assessments and the illness of other senior staff provided compelling indications that psychiatric injury was foreseeable.
5. The defendant’s failures to manage workloads, provide direction and support, implement relevant health and safety measures, undertake an individual stress-risk assessment, and manage the Prologis appeal constituted breaches of its contractual duty to take reasonable steps to protect the claimant’s health. The breaches operated cumulatively and individually.
6. On the balance of probabilities, appropriate and reasonable steps would have prevented the claimant from suffering any, or any significant, psychiatric illness at that time. Loss and damage reasonably and naturally flowing from the disorder were recoverable, subject to assessment.

The judgment describes an earlier constructive-dismissal claim before the London South Employment Tribunal, which was dismissed on 6 December 2006. The present claim was issued in the County Court and transferred to the High Court for determination of liability.