Deadman v Bristol City Council

Deadman v Bristol City Council

The Council's formal harassment procedure was incorporated into the employment contract, but the obligation to act 'sensitively' was not a contractual term. The Council breached contract by convening a panel of two rather than three, but any psychiatric harm suffered by Mr. Deadman was too remote to be recoverable. There was no breach of the common law duty of care because the harm was not reasonably foreseeable.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Michael John Deadman; Defendant/appellant: Bristol City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for Mr. Deadman set aside.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Implied Terms in Employment Contracts, Harassment Procedures, Foreseeability of Psychiatric Harm, Remoteness of Damages
Employment Law Contract Law Tort Law Employer's Duty of Care Implied Terms in Employment Contracts Harassment Procedures Foreseeability of Psychiatric Harm Remoteness 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Deadman

Claimant/respondent

Bristol City Council

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's harassment procedure was incorporated into the employment contract
  2. 2 Whether the Council breached its contractual or common law duty of care
  3. 3 Whether damages for psychiatric harm were too remote to be recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's formal harassment procedure was incorporated into the employment contract, but the obligation to act 'sensitively' was not a contractual term. The Council breached contract by convening a panel of two rather than three, but any psychiatric harm suffered by Mr. Deadman was too remote to be recoverable. There was no breach of the common law duty of care because the harm was not reasonably foreseeable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for Mr. Deadman set aside.

Orders

  • Judgment against Bristol City Council set aside.