Clyde & Co successfully defends a stress at work / bullying claim

This claim involved a Claimant who was employed by the Defendant in a senior/Managerial position and for which he was paid a significant salary.

The Claimant alleged that very soon after joining the Company he was required to work on a large scale IT project and he complained that he not been told about this at his job interview. The Claimant considered that this was an unreasonable task in addition to his everyday responsibilities.

The Claimant contended that he was subject to unsympathetic management, a grossly excessive workload, and a lack of support. The Claimant alleged that he became so stressed at work, that soon after starting work for the Defendant, he started drinking excessively. The Defendant’s position was that they were unaware of his excessive drinking or workplace stress. Further, the Claimant had performance issues at work, and he only reported that he was suffering from stress at work just a few weeks before the cessation of his employment.

The Claimant claimed over £750,000 based on the assumption that he would never return to his previous level of performance.

Investigation & Causation

We obtained witness statements from four witnesses, all of whom were consistent and provided credible evidence to challenge the Claimant’s case. Two of the witnesses had left the Defendant’s employ before the Trial but were willing to attend Trial. They had no particular axe to grind, and the Judge found that they were plainly attending in order to assist the Court.

The Claimant’s medical expert’s view was that the workplace events, or the Claimant’s perception of them, had or materially contributed to the Claimant’s psychological disorders. We obtained our own expert medical evidence to investigate causation and diagnosis. Our expert concluded that the Claimant had a chronic pre-existing psychiatric history of an alcohol-related dependence, and that the recurrence of his symptoms was caused by personal problems, not related to his employment. It was found that the Claimant would have developed the same problems in any event.

We also pursued an application for non-party disclosure from the Claimant’s previous employers. The importance of obtaining those documents was critical as they showed that the Claimant had given an inconsistent explanation for leaving his previous employment. As a result of this discovery, the Claimant had to apologise to the Court at Trial for providing a misleading witness statement.

We maintained a clear and robust Defence from the outset. We set out the weaknesses in the Claimant’s case throughout and made numerous (unsuccessful) attempts to persuade the Claimant to discontinue the claim ahead of Trial. Notwithstanding the inconsistencies in the Claimant’s case, this was not enough to deter the Claimant, and the matter proceeded to Trial.

Trial

On cross-examination of the Claimant, it became clear that he would not accept the contents of the written records, and he disputed (i) all the relevant medical records and (ii) the Occupational Health records pertaining to his background and employment.

Critically, the Judge found that the Claimant was not a reliable witness. The Judge did not accept that the Claimant was not told about the project at his job interview and did not accept that the Claimant was required to work any harder than his colleagues.

The Judge found that the Claimant had not proved that (i) he had an excessive workload; or (ii) that the Defendant knew that was the case or that the Claimant was suffering from stress that put him at risk of psychiatric injury.

The Judge found that the Claimant was in a responsible, well-paid job, at mid-senior level, and he was expected to work autonomously, use his own initiative and be able to work to tight deadlines. These were not unreasonable expectations for the nature of the role that the Claimant held. The Judge found that the Claimant was not overburdened or subject to unrealistic work demands.

The Judge held that in any such role, there might be periods of intense, hard work, and even stress, and that in itself is not out of the ordinary and would, on its own, lead a reasonable employer to think that the Claimant was likely to suffer psychiatric injury.

The Claimant cited a number of messages which he sent indicating that he would be online in the evening or over the weekend but these were in the context of a request to leave work early. In those circumstances, the Judge found a trade off between leaving early and then working at home to keep up with his workload would be reasonably expected. The Judge concluded that, although it is possible that subjectively, he felt overworked or unable to cope with his workload because his role was one which he was not particularly well suited, and, in turn, that caused him to feel stressed and to increase his drinking, the Defendants were clearly unaware throughout that the Claimant had a drinking problem until he finally brought the issue to the Defendant’s attention, shortly before the cessation of his employment.

When the Claimant did report to the Defendant’s Occupational Health / HR department that he was experiencing stress associated with his work, the Judge found that the employer took reasonable steps to address that by encouraging him to request flexible working, which would enable him to reduce his commuting hours and help to alleviate some of the associated fatigue and stress. The Defendant also made an Occupational Health referral promptly after the Claimant was signed off as unfit for work owing to stress.

Ultimately, whatever the precise relationship between the Claimant’s subjective perception of his work, his alcohol dependance and his mental health problems, the Judge found that the Claimant had not proved that (i) he had an excessive workload or (ii) that the Defendant knew or ought to have known the Claimant was suffering stress and that put the Claimant at risk of psychiatric injury. Therefore, the claim was dismissed.

What we can learn

The Judge made some helpful findings that being expected to work longer hours or unsocial hours was reasonable in a responsible, well-paid job, at mid-senior level. The key finding is that the Claimant has not put the Defendant on notice that there was a foreseeable risk of injury.

It is unclear why, despite our firm denial throughout and numerous invitations to discontinue, the Claimant decided to proceed to Trial. Careful review of the documents, consideration of the underlying inconsistencies within the Claimant’s evidence and a full appreciation of the evidential hurdles the Claimant would have to overcome to prove the claim ought to have put the Claimant’s advisors on notice of the substantial risks the Claimant faced.

Ultimately, this case turned on a forensic review of the documents. The Claimant's singular interpretation of the written communications was not accepted by the Court. The Claimant’s evidence was found to be inconsistent and was not supported by the contemporaneous records and so he did not prove his case.

This is an illustration of the benefits of fully investigating allegations and a detailed review of the documents at the outset of a case. Occupational stress claims remain difficult cases for Claimants to prove and equally they can be very expensive to defend. Whilst it can be tempting to consider early commercial settlements, the cost of such an approach can cost insurers dearly. Further, early commercial settlements can result in meritless cases being pursued in the future.

By obtaining detailed credible evidence and having the confidence to run the case to Trial, the claim was defeated resulting in substantial savings for the insurer. It is hoped that this result, will deter the Claimant’s solicitors from pursuing further unmeritorious claims, or at the very least, they will seriously consider Defendants’ repudiations of liability.