Mullen v Accenture Services Ltd.

Mullen v Accenture Services Ltd.

The claimant was not bullied or victimised; management conduct did not cross the line into genuinely offensive or unacceptable behaviour. Although the claimant suffered psychiatric injury as a result of work-related stress, the employer could not reasonably have foreseen the risk of imminent psychiatric harm to this particular employee. There was no evidence of particular vulnerability known to the employer, nor were there clear warning signs. No breach of common law or statutory duty was established.

Parties
Claimant: Kevin Mullen; Defendant: Accenture Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/employment / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Work Related Stress, Bullying, Employer's Liability, Foreseeability of Psychiatric Injury, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
Employment Law Personal Injury Work Related Stress Bullying Employer's Liability Foreseeability of Psychiatric Injury Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Mullen

Claimant

Accenture Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/employment / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was bullied or victimised by his manager and project manager
  2. 2 Whether the claimant suffered psychiatric injury as a result of work-related stress
  3. 3 Whether the employer ought to have reasonably foreseen the risk of psychiatric injury to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not bullied or victimised; management conduct did not cross the line into genuinely offensive or unacceptable behaviour. Although the claimant suffered psychiatric injury as a result of work-related stress, the employer could not reasonably have foreseen the risk of imminent psychiatric harm to this particular employee. There was no evidence of particular vulnerability known to the employer, nor were there clear warning signs. No breach of common law or statutory duty was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed