Marshall Specialist Vehicles Ltd v. Osborne [2003] UKEAT 0101_02_2904 (29 April 2003)

Marshall Specialist Vehicles Ltd v. Osborne [2003] UKEAT 0101_02_2904 (29 April 2003)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal tests for foreseeability, breach, and causation in cases of psychiatric injury from overwork, as clarified in Sutherland v Hatton and prior authorities. The Tribunal's formulation of a novel implied term was incorrect, and it failed to identify plain indications that would have required the employer to act. The Tribunal's decision cannot stand and must be quashed.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0101_02_2904
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Marshall Specialist Vehicles Ltd; Respondent/applicant: Mrs Osborne
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Tribunal decision quashed and remitted for rehearing.
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Implied Terms, Health and Safety at Work, Mutual Trust and Confidence, Unfair Dismissal
Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Implied Terms Health and Safety at Work Mutual Trust and Confidence Unfair Dismissal

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marshall Specialist Vehicles Ltd

Appellant/respondent

Mrs Osborne

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in finding constructive unfair dismissal based on breach of implied terms relating to health and safety and mutual trust and confidence.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal applied the correct legal test for foreseeability and breach in cases of psychiatric injury from overwork.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's formulation of a 'new implied term' was correct in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal tests for foreseeability, breach, and causation in cases of psychiatric injury from overwork, as clarified in Sutherland v Hatton and prior authorities. The Tribunal's formulation of a novel implied term was incorrect, and it failed to identify plain indications that would have required the employer to act. The Tribunal's decision cannot stand and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Tribunal decision quashed and remitted for rehearing.

Orders

  • The decision of the Employment Tribunal is quashed.
  • The matter is remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for rehearing.