Barber v Somerset County Council
An employer who knew that an employee was suffering from stress and did nothing to help him was liable for his psychiatric breakdown.
Facts
Mr Barber was a teacher who, after a restructuring of his school, worked long hours and took on extra responsibilities. He became depressed, and was signed off work by his doctor for three weeks. When he returned, he told the senior management team that he was not coping and that his health was suffering, but no steps were taken to reduce his workload or help him. Some months later, he suffered a nervous breakdown and was unable to work again.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that the council was liable. Lord Walker said that the guidance in Hatton v Sutherland was useful, but that the overall test was the conduct of the reasonable and prudent employer, taking positive thought for the safety of his workers in the light of what he knows or ought to know. Once the council knew of Mr Barber's problems, after his return to work, it should have taken steps to help him, such as making sympathetic inquiries or reducing his workload. It had done nothing, and the breakdown was a foreseeable result.
Related cases on psychiatric injury
- Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310
- Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
- Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912
- Dulieu v White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669
- Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 1 WLR 1970
- Hambrook v Stokes Brothers [1925] 1 KB 141
- Hatton v Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76, [2002] ICR 613
- McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
