Daw v Intel Corpn (UK) Ltd: [2007] EWCA Civ 70

CA: Pill, Wall and Richards LJJ: 7 February 2007

The claimant, who was employed in 1988 as a finance assistant by the defendants, a large international organisation, had by 2000, while still in their employment, become a mergers and acquisitions payroll integration analyst on a salary of about £33,000 a year. She was a loyal and capable employee but between September 2000 and March 2001she frequently complained to them of overwork and being under conflicting pressures at work. The defendants, who had in place a counselling service, of which the claimant did not avail herself, failed to resolve the problems, and, in June 2001, the claimant suffered a breakdown, since when she had not worked. On a claim in negligence by the claimant, the judge found that by early March 2001 injury to the claimant's health was reasonably foreseeable and the defendants should have realised that immediate action was required. He accordingly held that a failure of management had caused the stresses which had resulted in her breakdown and awarded damages of £134,545 for personal injury against the defendants.

The defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal held:
The essential background against which the claim had to be considered was that the claimant held an important administrative position in a very large organisation, for which she had worked for many years, that she was loyal and regarded by them of the highest calibre with a capacity for hard work and that she wished to remain in her employment and had prospects of promotion. Counselling services were not a panacea by which employers could discharge their duty of care in all cases, and the claimant's problems could only have been dealt with by management reducing her workload, and the fact that the claimant did not give up her job when the stresses grew did not, in the circumstances, eliminate the duty of care owed to her. Accordingly, injury to the claimant's health was reasonably foreseeable, and in failing to take urgent action to prevent it the defendants, despite the claimant's choice in not using the counselling service or leaving her job, were in breach of their duty of care to her.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appearances: Martin Porter QC and Nina Goolamali (Bevan Brittan LLP, Bristol) for the defendants; Roderick Moore (Lemon & Co, Swindon) for the claimant.