Daw v Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd.

Daw v Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd.

Permission to appeal refused on grounds that the judge was entitled to find foreseeability and causation based on the evidence, but granted on grounds relating to the sufficiency of counselling services, the extent of steps required, and the quantum of damages, as these raised arguable points with real prospects of success.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Tracy Ann Daw; Defendant/appellant: Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on grounds one and three; granted on grounds two, four, and five.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Psychiatric Injury, Foreseeability, Provision of Counselling Services, Quantum of Damages
Employment Law Tort Law Employer's Duty of Care Psychiatric Injury Foreseeability Provision of Counselling Services Quantum of Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracy Ann Daw

Claimant/respondent

Intel Corporation (UK) Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether psychiatric injury was foreseeable by the employer
  2. 2 Whether the steps required of the employer were excessive or unnecessary
  3. 3 Whether the steps would have prevented the injury

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal refused on grounds that the judge was entitled to find foreseeability and causation based on the evidence, but granted on grounds relating to the sufficiency of counselling services, the extent of steps required, and the quantum of damages, as these raised arguable points with real prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on grounds one and three; granted on grounds two, four, and five.

Orders

  • Application refused for grounds one and three.
  • Application granted for grounds two, four, and five.