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

Managing stress returnees

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Sutherland v Hatton [2002] IRLR 263 CA (3 other reports)

    • On appeal: Equal pay, stress and clear covenants

      Date:
      30 April 2002

      Continuing our regular series on the implications of recent significant cases. Sue Nickson, partner and head of employment law at Hammond Suddards Edge, looks at the issues, including equal pay, stress and clear covenants.

    • Employers' liability: Court of Appeal guidelines for stress at work cases

      Date:
      25 March 2002

      In Sutherland v Hatton, the Court of Appeal heard four appeals against county court judgments, related only by their subject matter. In each, a defendant employer appealed against a finding of liability for psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.

    • Court of Appeal issues guidelines on stress claims

      Date:
      1 March 2002

      In Sutherland v Hatton and others, the Court of Appeal strips three victims of work-related stress of damages, upholding the employers' appeals against county court judgments. In their judgment on 5 February 2002, Lady Justice Hale, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Kay also took the opportunity to lay down guidelines for claims for occupational stress cases.

When staff return from sick leave due to stress the onus is on the employer to ensure their workload is appropriate, the Court of Appeal has ruled, by Nicholas Moore.

The Court of Appeal in Young v Post Office, 2002, ECWA Civ 661, has ruled that an employer cannot successfully defend a claim for damages caused by stress at work on the grounds that it allowed the employee to work as little or as much as he or she wanted.