Pratley v Surrey County Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE |
| Judgment Date | 16 October 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 1552,[2003] EWCA Civ 1067 |
| Docket Number | B3/2002/1723 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 16 October 2002 |
[2002] EWCA Civ 1552
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY)
Lord Justice Longmore
B3/2002/1723
MR B LANGSTAFF QC (instructed by Messrs Hart Brown) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
THE RESPONDENT did not appear and was not represented
Miss Pratley seeks, on renewal, permission to appeal against the dismissal of her claim by Buckley J. She was a case manager for the elderly and was employed by the social services department of Surrey County Council at Leatherhead. She failed to return to work after 23rd September 1996, and complained that by reason of the defendant's breach of duty she suffered a serious psychiatric illness.
The judge held that she did suffer such an illness and that it had been caused, at least partly, by finding on her return from holiday that a scheme for reducing or at least containing her workload, known as "stacking", had not been implemented. She claimed that this was due to the council's negligence and in particular that of her immediate line manager, Mrs Elrick.
The judge held that there was no reason for Mrs Elrick or the County Council to be aware that Miss Pratley was likely to suffer psychiatric illness from the stress of her work until a meeting had occurred on 21st August. There is a note of that meeting, which Mr Langstaff has taken me through, and it does appear from that that Miss Pratley did require that her worries about her personal health should be recorded. The note also records that Mrs Elrick agreed to write to Carol (whom I assume is her superior) to inform her of the decision to stack new cases because of pressure of incoming work. Mrs Elrick did not in fact do that. She agreed in her evidence, according to Mr Langstaff and this is reflected in paragraph 22 of the judgment, that it would be reasonable for Miss Pratley to have expected stacking to be implemented on her return. The judge held, however, that to find that Mrs Elrick should in those circumstances have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lois Angela Sayers v Cambridgeshire County Council
...Court of Appeal decisions in stress at work cases as being consistent with the Hatton guidelines: (1) In Pratley v. Surrey County Council [2004] ICR 159 the claimant agreed with her employer that a system would be introduced for "stacking" the work she was required to do to prevent her from......
-
Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust
... ... APPEALS DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM: (1) The Southend County Court (Judge Dedman) (2) The Telford County Court (Mr Recorder ... [2002] 2 ALL ER 1 , the House of Lords in Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] 1 WLR 1089 and the guidance laid down in those cases that judges ... But, as Buxton LJ put it in Pratley v Surrey County Council [2004] 1CR 159 at paragraph 32, having referred ... ...
-
Banks v Ablex Ltd
...can be no liability.' " He then referred to Sutherland and Barber, before turning at paragraph 11 to Pratley v Surrey County Council [2004] ICR 159 where the judge found that the system of working imposed upon the claimant involved a foreseeable risk of injury to her in the long term, but n......
-
Edward Pratt V. The Scottish Ministers
...its emphasis upon the need for the particular type of harm to the particular employee to be foreseeable. Pratley v Surrey County Council [2004] ICR 159 provided further support for that proposition. Mr Milligan submitted that whilst the setting up of the Barlinnie Care Team indicated that t......
-
Employers' Liability at Common Law: Two Competing Paradigms
...Advocate General for Scotland 2001 GWD 3-129; Fraser v State Hospitals Board for Scotland 2001 SLT 1051; Pratley v Surrey County Council [2003] IRLR 794; Bonser v UK Coal Mining Ltd[2004] IRLR 164; Banks v Ablex Ltd [2005] IRLR 357. In Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care ......
-
Secondary Iatrogenic Harm: Claims for Psychiatric Damage Following a Death Caused by Medical Error
...Rly (1990) 75 DLR 4th248, 296.30 Greatorex vGreatorex [2000] 1 W LR 1970.31 Pratley vSurrey County Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1067; [2003] IRLR 794, see particularly thecourt’s unsatisfactory attempt to distinguis h the case of Joll ey vSutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082which dealt with foreseeabili......