Chapman v Lord Advocate - Court of Session 10 November
2005
Ms Chapman claimed damages for psychiatric stress as a result of
her work as Principal Procurator Fiscal Depute in Stirling Sheriff
Court between 1997 and 1999. She based her claim on the fault and
negligence of her line manager and her employer who sought to
challenge the relevancy of her case.
The Court was of the view that to be successful, Ms Chapman's
biggest difficulty was in establishing foreseeability of injury.
There were different ways in which psychiatric injury could become
reasonably foreseeable to an employer, however, the court stressed
that the psychiatric condition must be a pathological condition and
not just distress or anxiety. The duty was one of reasonable care
to a particular employee. The court rejected Ms Chapman's argument
of a general monitoring duty being incumbent on an employer.
Ms Chapman had accepted that she was not aware that her absences
between 1997 and 1999 relating to flu, stomach upset, chest pain,
headache and fatigue were stress related and admitted that she did
not complain of work related stress or depression to her GP. The
court held this was a wholly inadequate basis for saying that her
line manager ought to have reasonably known that she was suffering
from a psychiatric condition as a result of stress at work. Her
illnesses during that time were not psychiatric and there was no
reason for her line manager to attribute them to stress at work. It
was considered that the case against the Lord Advocate was even
weaker and that there were no relevant averments to support a duty
of care on the part of her line manager or the Lord Advocate to
take reasonable care not to cause Ms Chapman psychiatric injury.
The case was dismissed as irrelevant.
This judgement follows the decisions in Hatton v Sutherland
2002, and Rorrison v West Lothian Council 2000 and
underlines the difficulty for pursuers in establishing
foreseeability in stress claims. As the Judge put it "The major
hurdle which an employee claiming damages for psychiatric injury
due to stress at work must surmount is that of establishing the
foresee ability of such an injury". This decision will
hopefully act as a further deterrent to those intent on pursuing
occupational stress cases.