Law reports

This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Case round-up: Stress at work

This report relates to 1 case(s)

expand
Harding v The Pub Estate Company Ltd [2005] All ER (D) 156 (May) CA (2 other reports)
- Employers' liability: Employer not responsible for pub's rough customers
  
  Date:
  
  29 July 2005
  
  In Harding v The Pub Estate Company Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the approach adopted by the Court of Appeal in Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust is correct. The test is whether injury through stress at work, whether physical or psychiatric, to the particular employee was reasonably foreseeable in the light of what the employer knew, or ought to have known.
- High hurdles to clear hinder stress-related injury claims
  
  Date:
  
  21 June 2005
  
  Guidelines were set out by the Court of Appeal in Sutherland v Hatton [2002] IRLR when determining whether an employer is liable for psychiatric injury caused by stress at work. But what is the position when stress results in physical injury?

This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering stress at work.

Stress-related illness not foreseeable

Harding v The Pub Estate Company Ltd, Court of Appeal, 11 May 2005

Harding, an experienced publican, was appointed as manager of a pub to improve its profitability prior to its sale.

Read more items tagged with the same topics

Health and safety

Manage your tracked topics>

About this resource

Published date: 31 May 2005
Publisher: RBI
Source: Personnel Today

Explore XpertHR

Learn more

Customers

Get in touch

Connect with us

The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.

View our privacy policy, cookie policy and supported browsers.