GRAHAM DICKIE v. FLEXCON GLENROTHES LIMITED [2009] ScotSC 143 (04 September 2009)

GRAHAM DICKIE v. FLEXCON GLENROTHES LIMITED [2009] ScotSC 143 (04 September 2009)

The conduct of Harwood towards the pursuer, viewed objectively and in context, did not amount to a course of conduct that was oppressive or unacceptable so as to constitute actionable harassment under section 8(1) of the 1997 Act. Even if harassment had been established, the pursuer failed to prove causation between any such conduct and psychiatric injury, and failed to establish that damages for psychiatric injury were recoverable in the absence of foreseeability. The pursuer's evidence was not credible or reliable, and the incidents complained of were either justified workplace criticism or did not reach the statutory threshold.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 143
Parties
Pursuer: Graham Dickie; Defender: Harwood
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Harassment Claim (employment Context) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Harassment at Work, Psychiatric Injury, Causation, Foreseeability, Damages, Statutory Remedies
Employment Law Delict (tort) Statutory Interpretation Harassment at Work Psychiatric Injury Causation Foreseeability Damages +1 more

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 40 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Dickie

Pursuer

Harwood

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Harassment Claim (employment Context) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes actionable harassment under section 8(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997?
  2. 2 Is psychiatric injury recoverable as damages for harassment and what is the test for causation and foreseeability?
  3. 3 Did the conduct of Harwood towards the pursuer amount to harassment as defined by statute?

Ratio Decidendi

The conduct of Harwood towards the pursuer, viewed objectively and in context, did not amount to a course of conduct that was oppressive or unacceptable so as to constitute actionable harassment under section 8(1) of the 1997 Act. Even if harassment had been established, the pursuer failed to prove causation between any such conduct and psychiatric injury, and failed to establish that damages for psychiatric injury were recoverable in the absence of foreseeability. The pursuer's evidence was not credible or reliable, and the incidents complained of were either justified workplace criticism or did not reach the statutory threshold.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed