Daniel v Secretary of State for the Department of Health

Liability for work-related psychiatric injury depends on whether a harmful reaction to workplace pressures was reasonably foreseeable in the individual employee. The relevant warning signs are indications of impending mental injury, not stress alone. They must be sufficiently plain for a reasonable employer to realise that action is required.

Workplace conflict, forceful criticism and long hours do not necessarily amount to bullying or establish foreseeable injury. Bullying requires conduct that is genuinely offensive and unacceptable, such as intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour intended to undermine, humiliate or denigrate. On the facts, no duty of care arose because the employer had no sufficiently clear indication of impending psychiatric injury.

The claimant was employed by the defendant in a senior role managing a cancer research network. She alleged that workplace bullying, conflict over the pooling of NHS and commercial research resources, excessive workload and inadequate support caused occupational stress and a serious recurrence of her pre-existing bipolar disorder.

The defendant denied bullying, breach, foreseeability and causation. The court considered whether the alleged conduct amounted to bullying, whether it caused occupational stress, whether impending psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable, and whether any breach caused the claimant’s illness.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant suffered serious psychiatric injury, but the defendant was not liable.
2. The governing principles were those in Hatton v Sutherland [2002] ICR 613 and Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] 2 AER 385; [2004] UKHL 13. The question was whether a harmful reaction to workplace pressures was reasonably foreseeable in this individual employee. The warning signs had to concern impending mental injury, rather than stress alone, and had to be plain enough for a reasonable employer to realise that action was required.
3. The court adopted an objective approach to bullying. Having regard to Waters v Commissioner of Police [2000] 4 AER 934, H v Isle of Wight Council (QBD 23.2.01) and Majrowski v Guys and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC, bullying required genuinely offensive and unacceptable conduct. The forceful and blunt communications between the claimant and Professor Gabra were tough exchanges between senior colleagues in a fundamental dispute about research resources. They did not amount to bullying.
4. The claimant’s workload had increased and she worked long hours, but she had accepted the additional role willingly, was well remunerated and had not complained of being overworked. Her principal stress arose from her perception of the conflict with Professor Gabra and the loss of support for her position on pooled resources.
5. There were no sufficiently clear indications of impending mental injury. The defendant did not know of the claimant’s pre-existing psychiatric condition. Her emails maintained a professional tone and did not disclose her health problems. Her complaints concerned harassment, reputation and workplace policy rather than impending psychiatric illness. Accordingly, no duty of care arose.
6. In any event, there was no breach. The defendant had taken reasonable steps in relation to workload, support and the claimant’s returns to work. The court also held, alternatively, that occupational stress materially contributed to the psychiatric breakdown, together with the claimant’s vulnerability, her perceived conflict with Professor Gabra and her father’s death.