The situation of Hammond v INTC Network Expert services Ltd [2007], worried problems relating to vicarious liability exactly where a claimant complained that the defendant’s conduct causing him to suffer medical despair. The claimant in this case was employed by the defendant till he was inevitably produced redundant.
The claimant was struggling from clinical melancholy which he maintained experienced been brought on principally by the perform of the defendant, its personnel or agents. He alleged that this was either negligent or amounted to harassment contrary to the Safety from Harassment Act 1997 (“the Act”).
The claimant designed a quantity of allegations in relation to the employer’s perform that he argued amounted to harassment. The perform in dilemma included the reality that he had been moved to an additional element of a task for a week.
In reaction to the defendant’s reliance on contemporaneous paperwork, the claimant asserted that the files experienced both been forged or altered.
The court, in implementing settled rules, held that perform had to have an element of serious seriousness in buy to quantity to harassment below the Act. The perform had to be considered to be oppressive and unacceptable. If interpretation of the legislation meant that businesses ended up faced with allegations of harassment each and every time that they produced an operational selection, the professional world would grind to a halt.
Also, the court docket felt that it was critical in a negligence declare concerned with office pressure that in order for an employer to be liable it had to be demonstrated that the employer knew (or should to have known) that the staff would not be able to stand up to the pressure of the task.
The courtroom even more felt that the files have been authentic contemporaneous files, and were being the very best evidence of the defendant’s conduct at the time in problem. They founded that the events foremost up to the employee’s redundancy possibly did not materialize at all, or had been the end result of sensible administration selections. The courtroom thus stated that this situation was the finish reverse of harassment. Accordingly in these types of situation neither assert could be permitted to do well. In addition, and in relation to the declare for carelessness, the claimant had not demonstrated that his condition had been foreseeable by the defendant. As a end result, the court dismissed the claims.
© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not offer a comprehensive or entire assertion of the legislation relating to the issues talked about nor does it constitute legal information. It is supposed only to emphasize basic difficulties. Specialist lawful tips ought to usually be sought in relation to particular situations.