Hatton v Sutherland
An employer is liable for psychiatric injury caused by stress at work only if the injury was reasonably foreseeable, which usually requires indications of harm.
Facts
The Court of Appeal heard four appeals in cases where employees had suffered psychiatric illness caused by stress at work, including two teachers, an administrative assistant and a factory worker. The employers argued that they were not liable, because they had not known that the employees were at risk of illness.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal set out guidance for stress at work claims. Hale LJ said that the threshold question is whether this kind of harm to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable, which depends on what the employer knows or ought reasonably to know about the individual employee. An employer is usually entitled to assume that the employee can withstand the normal pressures of the job, unless he knows of some particular problem or vulnerability. An employer who offers a confidential advice service is unlikely to be found in breach. The court allowed three of the four appeals. One case went to the House of Lords as Barber v Somerset County Council.
Related cases on psychiatric injury
- Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310
- Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] UKHL 13, [2004] 1 WLR 1089
- 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
- 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.
