Easton v B & Q Plc [2015] EWHC 880 (QB) (31 March 2015)

Easton v B & Q Plc [2015] EWHC 880 (QB) (31 March 2015)

The court found that Mr Easton's psychiatric injury was not reasonably foreseeable by B & Q at any material time. There was no breach of duty in relation to promotion, workload, risk assessment, or the management of his return to work. B & Q had appropriate systems and policies in place, and Mr Easton did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 880
Parties
Claimant: Karl Michael Lee Easton; Defendant: B & Q Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2015
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim for Damages / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Work Related Stress, Psychiatric Injury, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty
Employment Law Tort Law Employer's Liability Work Related Stress Psychiatric Injury Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karl Michael Lee Easton

Claimant

B & Q Plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim for Damages / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether B & Q Plc was negligent or in breach of statutory duty in relation to Mr Easton's psychiatric injury caused by work-related stress
  2. 2 Whether the psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable by the employer
  3. 3 Whether B & Q failed to carry out adequate risk assessment for stress

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Easton's psychiatric injury was not reasonably foreseeable by B & Q at any material time. There was no breach of duty in relation to promotion, workload, risk assessment, or the management of his return to work. B & Q had appropriate systems and policies in place, and Mr Easton did not communicate any clear need for assistance. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for damages for psychiatric illness and consequential loss dismissed
  • No breach of duty found against B & Q Plc