Chapter 10

Page 186
The principles set out on Hatton concerning employers' liability for occupational stress were considered by the Court of Appeal in Daw v Intel Corporation Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 70. The claimant, Mrs Daw, who was employed by the defendants for nearly thirteen years, was regarded as a highly efficient, conscientious and loyal employee. She had frequently complained to the defendants about her heavy workload and the conflicting pressures of her work as the result of being accountable to three different managers. The defendants failed to resolve the problems and in March 2001, as a result of chronic stress, the claimant suffered a severe mental breakdown.

In finding the defendant liable, the Court of Appeal held that, despite the claimant's decision not to use the counselling services provided by the employer, the defendant had breached its duty to her when it had become aware that the increase in her workload was having an adverse effect on her mental health, but had taken no steps to help her.

Page 186
Dickins v O2 plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1144 concerned an appeal by O2 against a finding of liability to Ms Dickins, its former employee, for psychiatric injury negligently caused by excessive stress in her job as a finance manager. In the course of her career the claimant was promoted to the position of management accountant, however, she had no formal qualifications in accountancy nor did she receive the training or support she had expected from her employer. When the volume of her work became too much she reached the stage where she was ‘stressed out’ and spoke to her manager about the possibility of moving to a less stressful job. Nothing had been done to address her problem and although she continued at work, the claimant informed her manager that she did not know how long she could carry on before being off sick. It was suggested that she contact the counselling service provided by her employer but she did not avail of this service because she was already undergoing counselling arranged by her general practitioner.

On the issue of breach of duty the Hatton suggestion that an employer who offers a confidential counselling service was unlikely to be found in breach of duty was considered. Applying Daw v Intel Corp (UK) Ltd [2007] where the desirability of an advice and counselling service was discussed, the Court of Appeal pointed out that it was made plain in Hatton that the advantage of such a service was because many employees were unwilling to admit to their line managers that they were not coping with their work for fear of damaging their reputations. A confidential service would enable the employee to take advice without making any potentially damaging disclosure direct to the employer. However, in this case Ms Dickins informed her manager that she was ‘at the end of her tether’ and described severe symptoms which she alleged were due to stress at work. She was not afraid to tell her line manager that she was not coping with her work, her problems could only be dealt with by management intervention, so a mere suggestion that she seek counselling could not be regarded as an adequate response and O2 was liable for her work-related stress.

Oxford University Press, Online Resource Centre, Chapter 10.

Chapter 10