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

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

B & Q Plc did not breach its duty of care to Mr Easton. The psychiatric injury was not reasonably foreseeable to the employer, as Mr Easton did not communicate any clear warning or request for assistance regarding excessive stress. The employer's systems for promotion, risk assessment, and return to work were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 880 (QB)
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, Duty of Care, Risk Assessment, Breach of Statutory Duty
Tort Law Employment Law Employer's Liability Work Related Stress Psychiatric Injury Negligence Duty of Care Risk Assessment +1 more

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 1
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 breached its duty of care to Mr Easton by exposing him to foreseeable work-related stress resulting in psychiatric injury
  2. 2 Whether B & Q Plc was negligent or in breach of statutory duty in its management of Mr Easton's promotion prospects and return to work
  3. 3 Whether lack of risk assessment or support constituted a breach of duty

Ratio Decidendi

B & Q Plc did not breach its duty of care to Mr Easton. The psychiatric injury was not reasonably foreseeable to the employer, as Mr Easton did not communicate any clear warning or request for assistance regarding excessive stress. The employer's systems for promotion, risk assessment, and return to work were adequate and followed. No actionable breach of duty or causative negligence was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed