T AGAINST W [2022] ScotCS CSOH_44 (27 May 2022)

T AGAINST W [2022] ScotCS CSOH_44 (27 May 2022)

The court held that the defender did not breach its duty of care to the pursuer. The defender was not aware, nor ought reasonably to have been aware, of the pursuer's particular vulnerability to psychiatric injury. The competence and disciplinary procedures were implemented in accordance with established policy and were not negligent. The psychiatric injury suffered by the pursuer was not reasonably foreseeable by the defender.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSOH_44
Parties
Pursuer: T; Defender: W
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (psychiatric Injury) Claim / Outer House, Court of Session, Proof and Judgment
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Psychiatric Injury, Workplace Stress, Competence Procedures, Occupational Health, Disciplinary Process
Employment Law Personal Injury Law Employer's Duty of Care Psychiatric Injury Workplace Stress Competence Procedures Occupational Health Disciplinary Process

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T

Pursuer

W

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (psychiatric Injury) Claim / Outer House, Court of Session, Proof and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender breached its duty of care to the pursuer by exposing her to unnecessary risk of psychiatric injury
  2. 2 Whether the defender's actions in implementing competence and disciplinary procedures were negligent or unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable by the defender

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defender did not breach its duty of care to the pursuer. The defender was not aware, nor ought reasonably to have been aware, of the pursuer's particular vulnerability to psychiatric injury. The competence and disciplinary procedures were implemented in accordance with established policy and were not negligent. The psychiatric injury suffered by the pursuer was not reasonably foreseeable by the defender.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • The pursuer's claim for damages is refused.
  • No award of damages is made.