Gabor Meggyes

Bentley Motors Ltd

Claimant unsuccessful in a stress at work claim as the stress being induced was not foreseeable by the employer at the relevant time.

NB: This is a psychiatric injury claim for injuries suffered during employment and was heard in Liverpool County Court.

The claimant was employed with the defendant from May 2015 as a series planning engineer. This changed to Planning Engineer and the level of responsibility and work increased which he alleged led to an increase in the level of stress.

The claimant complained of a high workload and emailed to say that he was finishing tasks later than others because he had been doing more than others and had three times as much work as others. The claimant stated in 2019 this led to him becoming depressed and drinking quite heavily. He then sent an email which was termed as a cry for help which he stated that his working list was getting longer and longer and that he was regularly receiving headaches. In a meeting he said it was overwhelming, and the waves were clashing over his head. These issues and other related medical issues continued to arise. This came to a head in March 2020 when a long email was written outlining the issues and how they were having an effect. The claimant only worked five days after that due to furlough and then voluntary release in July 2020.

The claimant brought a claim relating to psychiatric injury suffered during his employment.

The legal issue was on foreseeability – i.e. whether it was foreseeable for the employer that there was a risk that the claimant would suffer psychiatric injury due to his exposure to work related stress.  The employer conceded that it did arise due to the email in March 2020 but not before. The court set out the applicable test stating that the threshold is whether the kind of harm to the particular employee was reasonably foreseeable and that has two components one relating to the injury to health and that it was attributable to stress at work.  This would look at the nature and extent of the work done by the employee.  This would look at whether the workload was intellectually or emotionally demanding for that type of employee, whether it was unreasonable or demands made of others in the same role. There would also have to be signs of harm or impending harm.  This could relate to a vulnerability for instance.  The employer could then take what is being told at face value rather than having to carry out enquiries and that to trigger a duty to take steps the indications of impending harm from stress at work must be plain enough for a reasonable employer to realise that something should be done about it.

Bearing this in mind, and the fact that it is for the claimant to prove, it was held that the threshold was not passed until March 2020.  The court was satisfied that the defendant took reasonable steps at that point such as a workplace stress assessment and a recommendation that he would see his GP.

This is a case arising from the County Court rather than the Industrial/Employment Tribunal but does provide some useful guidance on how employers should interact with their employees when it comes to stress at work. The factors as outlined by the court and their applicability is useful information in ensuring that an employer adequately supports it staff but also ensures that it is not met with a personal injury claim arising from stress at work.