Sayers v Cambridgeshire County Council

Sayers v Cambridgeshire County Council

The Council was not liable for Mrs Sayers' psychiatric illness because the risk of such injury was not reasonably foreseeable to the employer. Mrs Sayers did not disclose her vulnerability or medical history, and the Council was entitled to assume she was robust enough for her role. Breaches of Working Time...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Lois Angela Sayers; Defendant: Cambridgeshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Work Related Stress, Psychiatric Injury, Breach of Duty, Breach of Contract, Working Time Regulations, Statutory Duty, Implied Term of Trust and Confidence
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Contract Law Tort Law Work Related Stress Psychiatric Injury Breach of Duty Breach of Contract +3 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 5 Authorities cited 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lois Angela Sayers

Claimant

Cambridgeshire County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council is liable for psychiatric illness suffered by Mrs Sayers due to work-related stress
  2. 2 Whether the Council breached its common law duty, contractual duty, statutory duty, or Working Time Regulations
  3. 3 Whether psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable to the employer

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was not liable for Mrs Sayers' psychiatric illness because the risk of such injury was not reasonably foreseeable to the employer. Mrs Sayers did not disclose her vulnerability or medical history, and the Council was entitled to assume she was robust enough for her role. Breaches of Working Time Regulations and alleged failures in risk assessment or restructuring did not give rise to a cause of action for damages. Claims for breach of contract, statutory duty, and direct effect of EU directives also failed due to lack of foreseeability and absence of actionable rights.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed