Hatton v Sutherland [2002] 2 All ER 1

Facts

• The case concerned claims by employees for psychiatric injury resulting from workplace stress.
• Multiple claimants alleged their employers failed to protect their psychological well-being from pressures encountered at work.
• The Court of Appeal addressed whether and when employers could be held liable in negligence for employees’ psychiatric injuries caused by work-related stress.
• The judgment focused on the level of knowledge an employer had regarding an individual employee’s vulnerability to mental harm caused by stress at work.

Issues

1. Whether employers can be held liable for employees’ psychiatric injury arising from workplace stress under the principles of negligence.
2. Whether liability depends on the foreseeability of psychiatric harm to a specific employee rather than general occupational stress.
3. To what extent an employer’s knowledge of an employee’s particular vulnerability affects liability.
4. Whether particular occupations could be considered intrinsically dangerous to mental health for the purposes of establishing liability.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that employers may be liable for psychiatric injury caused by workplace stress only where such harm was reasonably foreseeable in the case of the particular employee.
• Employers are generally entitled to assume employees can withstand ordinary workplace pressures unless put on notice of an employee’s particular vulnerability.
• Notice could arise from being told of an employee’s prior mental health problems or expressed concerns related to workplace stress.
• No occupation is deemed intrinsically dangerous to mental health; liability must be assessed on the circumstances and information relevant to the individual.
• Ordinary tort principles of duty of care, breach, and causation apply to workplace psychiatric injury.

Legal Principles

• Reasonable foreseeability is the core test for liability in psychiatric harm claims; foreseeability must relate to harm suffered by the specific employee.
• Knowledge of an employee's vulnerability or previous complaints about stress is a key factor in determining foreseeability.
• Employers are not required to be psychiatric experts but must implement reasonable systems for identifying and addressing stress-related risks.
• The standard for liability is that of a reasonable employer considering the specific context of the employment.
• No employment is presumed to be inherently dangerous to mental health for the purposes of employer liability.

Conclusion

Hatton v Sutherland establishes that employer liability for psychiatric injury from workplace stress is predicated on reasonable foreseeability of harm to a specific employee, taking into account what the employer knew or ought to have known about the individual’s vulnerability, and reaffirms the application of ordinary negligence principles while rejecting the categorisation of roles as intrinsically dangerous to mental health.