Harding v Pub Estate Company Ltd

The respondent failed to establish that the appellants were on notice of a foreseeable risk of harm to his health. There was no sufficient or clear warning to the employer that required them to act, and thus no breach of duty was established. The claim fails at the point of foreseeability and notification.

Parties: Respondent/claimant: Edward Harding; Appellant/defendant: The Pub Estate Company Ltd
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 11 May 2005
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed. Claim dismissed.
Legal Topics: Employer's Liability for Stress at Work, Personal Injury, Negligence, Foreseeability of Harm

Employment Law Tort Law Employer's Liability for Stress at Work Personal Injury Negligence Foreseeability of Harm

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Edward Harding

Respondent/claimant

The Pub Estate Company Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the employer was negligent in failing to prevent personal injury caused by workplace stress
2 Whether the employer was on notice of a foreseeable risk of harm to the employee's health
3 Whether the employee's complaints were sufficient to trigger a duty on the employer to act

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Claim dismissed.

Orders

Judgment entered for the defendant.
Claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of the action and the appeal, subject to detailed assessment.