Insurers are breathing a sigh of relief after a key Court of Appeal decision concerning workplace stress, according to law firm Halliwell Landau.
The Court of Appeal has closed the door to potentially thousands of claims by confirming there must be clear signs of psychiatric harm before an employer is under a duty to act.
Halliwell Landau represented UK Coal in the case of Bonser v UK Coal.
David Pugh, an associate at Halliwell Landau's Sheffield office, said: "Had the Court of Appeal not overturned the decision the floodgates would have been open for almost any hard working employee with a psychiatric injury to claim from their employer for workplace stress.
"Common sense has prevailed, but it is still a clear reminder to employers about the importance of putting policies and procedures in place to guard against workplace stress."
Pugh added: The claimant, Christine Bonser, was an IT support and training manager. She claimed that the volume of the work she was given led her to develop a psychiatric injury. The trial judge said that the claimant was more vulnerable because she was a woman and had extra areas of responsibility.
"At the Court of Appeal the claimant argued that there should be a 'threshold' test to her workload and if this was exceeded then her claim should succeed.
"The Court of Appeal, headed by the Master of the Rolls, unanimously rejected the claimant's argument and reverted to the well established authority of Hatton v Sutherland saying that there must be clear signs of impending psychiatric harm to the individual before the employer is under a duty to act.
"The Court of Appeal regarded the trial judge's distinction drawn on the grounds of the claimant's sex as 'unfortunate'."
