Personal injury; work-related stress; foreseeability and apportionment. Hale LJ set out sixteen 'practical propositions' at [43] governing employer liability for psychiatric injury caused by occupational stress; the threshold question is whether injury to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable. Proposition 15 (where harm has more than one cause the employer pays only for the proportion attributable to his wrongdoing unless the harm is truly indivisible, and it is for the defendant to raise apportionment) and proposition 16 (damages take account of any pre-existing disorder or vulnerability and the chance the claimant would have succumbed anyway) were obiter, apportionment not arising in any of the four conjoined appeals. Proposition 15 was doubted obiter in Dickins v O2 plc and the conflict resolved in Hatton's favour in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak at [70]. The neutral citation is captioned Sutherland v Hatton; one conjoined appeal went to the House of Lords as Barber v Somerset CC [2004] UKHL 13. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Doubted by Dickins v O2 plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1144 (2008-10-16)
Obiter. The Court of Appeal later preferred Hatton: BAE Systems v Konczak [70].
Followed by BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak [2017] EWCA Civ 1188 (2017-07-31)
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Personal injury; work-related stress; apportionment. Smith LJ, expressly obiter, doubted Hale LJ's proposition 15 in Hatton v Sutherland: 'I respectfully wish (obiter) to express my doubts as to the correctness of Hale LJ's approach to apportionment.' She questioned whether proposition 15 could ever apply in practice, psychiatric injury being in her view always indivisible, and considered that justice could be done by proposition 16 alone. The conflict with Hatton was later resolved in Hatton's favour by the Court of Appeal in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Not followed by BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak [2017] EWCA Civ 1188 (2017-07-31)
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Health and safety; s.100(1)(d) ERA 1996; coronavirus; reasonable belief; serious and imminent danger. The EAT held that a general fear of Covid-19 is not automatically sufficient to engage s.100(1)(d), the employee must hold a reasonable belief that the circumstances at the workplace constitute a serious and imminent danger. The tribunal must consider whether the specific conditions of the claimant's particular workplace gave rise to a qualifying belief, not merely a generalised concern about the pandemic. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Affirmed by Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1659 (2022-12-20)