Rosemary Fletcher v Argyll & Bute Council - Court of
Session, Outer House, 26 October 2007
Rosemary Fletcher was employed by Argyll and Bute Council as a
supply teacher and had been since 1990. In about 1998 she began to
work for the council as a teacher on a permanent full time basis at
Islay High School. In August 2000 she was assigned to teach drama
to Class S3 at that school. She maintained that by September 2000
the behaviour of the class had deteriorated to the extent that they
were impossible to control. This caused her to be stressed and
ultimately develop depression. Matters came to a head in June 2001,
following upon a window in her class being broken. She did not
return to teaching and was diagnosed with depression four months
later in October 2001.
Mrs Fletcher brought an action for damages against the council
on the basis that the problems she had encountered with the pupils
caused her to suffer psychiatric injury. The case called for a
preliminary hearing where one of the points argued on behalf of the
council was that Mrs Fletcher had failed to put forward enough in
fact or in law to prove that the risk of her developing a
psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable to her employer. The
council suggested it was not enough to prove that the class was
causing her to be stressed and the fact that she was diagnosed with
depression after she stopped teaching and there had been no prior
absences was indicative of the fact that her psychiatric injury was
not reasonably foreseeable to the council.
In response those representing Mrs Fletcher asked the court to
focus on the cumulative effect of the continuing disruptive
behaviour of the class and the council's failure to respond
effectively to that situation. During this period it was said that
Mrs Fletcher's husband had told the Head Teacher that the problems
with the class were making his wife ill. It was also said Mrs
Fletcher was regularly seen by colleagues weeping and that her
colleagues often had to take her out of this particular class or
indeed send her home because of her emotional instability.
In considering matters Temporary Judge C J MacAulay QC referred
to the case of Hatton v Sutherland (2002 1 AER 1) as
providing valuable guidance on how cases involving occupational
stress were to be approached. He accepted that the 'threshold
question' is whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the
individual employee concerned would suffer psychiatric harm. He
also noted that the 16 propositions suggested by Lord Justice Hale
in Hatton dealing with the threshold question were no more
than guidance and ultimately the answer in each case would depend
on the particular facts and circumstances.
Given the detail in which Mrs Fletcher set out what had happened
to her between August 2000 and October 2001 Temporary Judge
MacAulay felt there was potentially enough material if proved to
meet the threshold test and allowed the case to proceed to
proof.
Not very many stress cases have gone to proof in Scotland and
none, so far as we are aware, have yet been successful. If
Fletcher proceeds we will of course report the
outcome.
Contributed by Lynne Anderson