Sutherland v Hatton: A Solution to Ireland's Occupational Stress Question?
View/ Open
Date
2002Author
Connolly, Ursula
Metadata
Show full item recordUsage
This item's downloads: 3045 (view details)
Recommended Citation
Connolly, Ursula. (2002). Sutherland v Hatton: A Solution to Ireland's Occupational Stress Question? Irish Law Times, 20.
Published Version
Abstract
The Irish Courts have not dealt with the issue of occupational stress claims in any
great detail. However, in a recent UK decision, Sutherland v Hatton1
, where four
separate appeals were joined together, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to
consider the question of such claims in depth. There has been a growing awareness of
the issue since the English decision of Walker v Northumberland County Council2
in
1995, where an employee successfully sued his employer for personal injury arising
from two nervous breakdowns suffered as a result of workplace stress.3
It is a debate
that has gripped both the National Authority for Occupational Health and Safety
(HSA)4
in Ireland and the European Union, which has designated 2002 as ‘Workplace
Stress Prevention Year’. While it is accepted that the prevention of stress is a valuable
focus for the debate, there is no question that stress is an unavoidable element of most
occupations, and in many cases does not lead to any adverse consequences. It is only
when foreseeable injury arises as a result of occupational stress that an employer
should face liability, but until this most recent decision there has been little judicial
guidance in the area. The decision in Sutherland is valuable, as it lays down practical
guidelines as to when liability may be imposed.