NM v SM
[2023] EWHC 2209 (Fam)
Darren Cavanaugh v Folsana Pressed Sections Limited
7 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1381 (KB)
High Court
A worker sued his old boss for making him mentally ill. The judge said the boss didn't do anything wrong; the worker's mental health problems weren't the boss's fault, even though the worker had told the boss he was unwell. The worker's claim was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Cavanaugh, a long-serving employee of Folsana Pressed Sections Limited, was summarily dismissed in November 2018.
- •He claimed psychiatric injury due to breaches of contract and tort by Folsana during his suspension and disciplinary investigation.
- •The dismissal itself was not actionable due to *Johnson v Unisys*.
- •Mr. Cavanaugh alleged a conspiracy by Folsana's management to oust him.
- •He made several 'Mental Health Notifications' to Folsana during the process.
- •Expert psychiatric evidence was presented by both sides.
Legal Principles
Damages for personal injury arising from dismissal are precluded by *Johnson v Unisys* [2003] 1 AC 518.
Johnson v Unisys
Claims can be brought for personal injury caused by breaches *prior* to dismissal (*Eastwood and other v Magnox Plc, McCabe v Cornwall County Council* [2004] 3 All ER 991).
Eastwood and other v Magnox Plc, McCabe v Cornwall County Council
Implied contractual duty of mutual trust and confidence (*Malik* term).
Malik
Duty of care in tort to take reasonable care for an employee's safety and operate a safe system of work.
Common law and contract
Principles relating to reasonable foreseeability in occupational psychiatric injury cases (*Hatton v Sutherland*, *Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office*, *Croft v Broadstairs Town Council*).
Hatton v Sutherland, Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Croft v Broadstairs Town Council
Test for breach of duty: was the employer's action unreasonable and outside the range of reasonable decisions?
Mian
Causation in psychiatric injury cases: consideration of whether injury would have occurred in any event and apportionment of harm (*Bailey v Ministry of Defence*, *BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd. v Konczak*).
Bailey v Ministry of Defence, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd. v Konczak
Outcomes
Claim dismissed in its entirety.
The claimant failed to establish that Folsana breached any duty owed to him. The alleged conspiracy was rejected. The court found that the suspension and disciplinary process were reasonably conducted and that the claimant's psychiatric injury was not reasonably foreseeable, nor caused by Folsana's actions.