Karl Michael Lee Easton v B & Q Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice William Davis |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 880 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ13X05520 |
| Date | 31 March 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 880 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice William Davis
Case No: HQ13X05520
Mr Andrew Buchan and Miss Tamar Burton (instructed by Thompson Smith & Puxon) for the Claimant
Ms Farrah Mauladad (instructed by Kennedys) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 16 – 20 March 2015
Introduction
The Claimant, Karl Easton, is now aged 48. He left school at 16 with modest academic qualifications. He went to work at a local Sainsbury's supermarket as a trainee butcher. He gradually worked his way up through the ranks at Sainsbury's. By 2001 he was the manager of a Sainsbury's supermarket in Colchester. Over the next three years he progressed with Sainsbury's. He eventually became the manager of a very large branch of Sainsbury's at Warren Heath, Ipswich with an annual salary of around £72,000. His abilities as the manager of a large retail outlet were identified by B & Q, the well-known chain of DIY stores. In 2004 he was recruited by B & Q as a unit manager i.e. to manage one of their stores.
Mr Easton progressed well with B & Q. At the beginning of 2007 he was seconded to the head office of the company to lead a small team which implemented a structural change in the range of products available in B & Q stores. In July 2008 he was appointed as the manager of the B & Q store in Romford. This store was about to undergo a substantial refurbishment. The previous manager in post, Simon Green, considered that he was not able to manage a project of this size. B & Q moved him to a smaller store in Ipswich as the manager of that store. Mr Easton was regarded highly by senior management at B & Q and was seen as a manager capable of overseeing the refurbishment and thereafter of reaping the benefits of the refurbishment. The expectations of the senior managers were borne out by events. The refurbishment was carried out successfully. The Romford store performed well thereafter. By March 2010 Mr Easton's total gross salary including bonuses and benefits was around £105,000.
It is against this background that Mr Easton brings his claim for damages for psychiatric illness and consequential loss caused by work-related stress. In May 2010 he was diagnosed as suffering from depression. Save for two very brief unsuccessful attempts to return to work in September 2010 and January 2012, Mr Easton never worked again for B & Q. His case is that his initial illness was caused by occupational stress and that this occupational stress was due to the negligence and/or breach of statutory duty on the part of B & Q. Further, he claims that B & Q were in breach of duty in their management of his return to work in September 2010 so as to cause a relapse of his illness. B & Q accept that Mr Easton has suffered a psychiatric illness and that the illness at least in substantial measure was caused by occupational stress. Their primary case is that Mr Easton's illness was not foreseeable at any stage. They say also that they did not act in breach of any duty whether prior to the onset of the psychiatric illness or at the time of the return to work in September 2010.
The witnesses
The evidence called on behalf of the Claimant was as follows:
• Mr Easton himself.
• Teresa Dedman, a Human Resources manager with B & Q.
• David Griffiths, a department manager at the Romford B & Q store.
• Anthony Blow, another department manager at the Romford store.
• Mark Walpole, the service manager at the Romford store – he and another man named Russell were the two senior managers working immediately under Mr Easton.
The Defendant called the following witnesses:
• Philip Russell, the stock manager at the Romford store – he was the other senior manager reporting directly to Mr Easton.
• Nigel Hughes, the regional manager with responsibility for the Romford store – he was Mr Easton's line manager.
• Tanya Lakey, a supervisor at the Romford store.
• Damien McGloughlin, the divisional director for the Eastern region of B & Q until about the end of 2009 – the Romford store was one of around 80 stores for which he was responsible and he was Mr Hughes's line manager.
• Craig Black, the regional manager for East Anglia – he was Nigel Hughes's counterpart for that part of the country and he was involved in Mr Easton's first managed return to work in September 2010.
• Ian Herrett, a director of B & Q.
• Simon Green, the manager of the B & Q store at Ipswich at which Mr Easton's first return to work was attempted – he had been the manager of the Romford store prior to Mr Easton's appointment.
In general terms I am satisfied that the witnesses who gave evidence were doing their best to give accurate evidence about the matters to which they referred. Since the events about which they were speaking occurred in 2010 and earlier, there is ample room for honest mistake on the part of all of the witnesses. In those circumstances I have paid particular attention to contemporaneous documents (where available) and to accounts given by witnesses much nearer in time to the events i.e. in the course of a B & Q grievance procedure instigated in 2011 by Mr Easton. In relation to Mr Easton's own evidence I take into account that he views the events of 2010 and earlier through the prism of a genuine and significant psychiatric illness which is attributable to his work with B & Q. That has affected the accuracy of his recollection of some events and it has had an effect on his perception of what was said and done by senior managers at B & Q.
It is argued on behalf of Mr Easton that the witnesses called by B & Q (with one exception) are still employed by that company and that they should be regarded as partial. There was no investigation with the witnesses of the supposed effect on their evidence of their continued employment with B & Q. In his closing submissions on behalf of the Claimant Mr Buchan noted that Mr Russell had an ambition to be a store manager. Whilst it is true that Mr Russell gave this evidence, he was given no opportunity to meet the suggestion – even now only implicit – that his ambition had affected his evidence. I am unimpressed by the submission that the evidence of the witnesses called by B & Q should be given less regard simply because of their continued employment with the company. I also consider that there is little assistance to be gained in my assessment of the evidence of the Claimant's witnesses from the fact that they are not employed by B & Q. It is said that their attendance shows the high regard in which they held Mr Easton as a manager and their strength of feeling about the Romford store. The former point is not in issue. B & Q's case is that Mr Easton was a high performing manager. As to the latter, whether a witness feels strongly about something is not a proper indication that he or she is giving accurate evidence. It may be a trigger for exaggeration. I have assessed the evidence of every witness in the same way. Is the evidence internally consistent? How does it fit with contemporaneous documentation? How does it fit with other evidence given in the case? Is there anything inherently improbable about the evidence?
There is one witness on whose evidence I am satisfied it would not be safe to rely, namely Mark Walpole. In July 2010 he wrote to a Human Resources manager at B & Q raising a grievance in respect of his treatment by Mr Easton. He alleged that he had been regularly bullied and intimidated by Mr Easton. He said that he had been forced to do all of the early and late shifts at the store, Mr Easton not being part of the shift rota. His letter in July 2010 did not mention (other than in passing) any particular problems with the store before Mr Easton's illness. Subsequently Mr Walpole brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal against B & Q. He made a witness statement in those proceedings, a copy of which was provided to me. In that statement he set out various difficulties experienced in the store in the later part of 2009 and in the first few months of 2010. However, he also catalogued the bullying which he said had been carried out by Mr Easton, this behaviour continuing up to May 2010. On the 17 th March 2015 – which was the second day of the hearing of this claim – Mr Walpole made a further witness statement to the solicitors instructed by Mr Easton. This statement gave a completely different picture of his relationship with Mr Easton. He said this: "I enjoyed working with Karl Easton….We had a good working relationship. There were a few incidents, on about 5 or 6 occasions, when Karl telephoned me and blamed me for something. The next day he apologised." In his oral evidence Mr Walpole sought to explain the apparent discrepancy between the earlier documents and his statement of the 17 th March 2015 by saying that the earlier documents were concerned only with the negative points in relation to Mr Easton because the positive points were not relevant in relation to his grievance or to his Employment Tribunal claim. I reject that explanation. It plainly was relevant to set out the full position vis-à-vis Mr Easton in the earlier documents. I am not in a position to determine why Mr Walpole has changed his account. However, I am quite satisfied that his various accounts are wholly inconsistent one with another. In consequence I shall pay no regard to the evidence given by Mr Walpole. In his closing submissions Mr Buchan argued that, because Mr Walpole was not cross-examined on his witness statement of the 17 th March, the statement should be given considerable weight. I regret that I do not understand that submission. Mr Walpole was cross-examined on the basis of wholesale inconsistencies between his recent witness statement and earlier statements....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Authority Liability Update: Can You Do It If You B&Q It?
...not found liable for stress in the workplace Easton v B&Q Plc[2015] EWHC 880 (QB) The The Claimant, a B&Q employee, sought damages for psychiatric illness and consequential loss caused by workrelated stress. He had been the manager of one of B&Q's stores when he started to suffe......