In Sayers v Cambridgeshire CC the Claimant failed to satisfy the Judge that her injury should have been foreseen by her employers. Although the Defendant had breached the Working Time Regulations, the Claimant had not worked significantly in excess of the 48 hours per week limit and, in any event, the Claimant would have had difficulty in demonstrating that the extra hours were causative of her illness. Breach of the WTR did not give rise to a cause of action in itself.

Sayers v Cambridgeshire CC

[2006] EWHC 2029 (QB)

The Claimant, who had a past history of depression, had been appointed Operations Manager, which involved managing a large number of team managers and undertaking substantial project work.  The Defendant then re-structured her role and reduced her workload following her complaint about heavy workload and long hours.  Dissatisfied with her new role, the Claimant unsuccessfully applied for a more senior position. She alleged that her manager had been party responsible for her failure, owing to the reference he gave. She became tearful and upset on occasion.  She continued to complain about her manager and instituted a grievance procedure which the Defendant sought to resolve. The Claimant had started taking antidepressant medication but, although two colleagues were aware that she was taking medication, she did not inform the Defendant of the true nature of her illness.  She took some limited time off.  Eventually, she left work and was unable to return, her employment being terminated on the grounds of ill health. 

She brought a claim in negligence, arguing that the Defendant had failed to reduce her workload, deal properly with her relationship problems with her manager, carry out a risk assessment or ensure compliance with the Working Time Regulations 1998. She alleged also a breach of statutory duty because she had regularly worked in excess of 48 hours per week in breach of the WTR.

Ramsey J. held: (1) The Claimant had not established that her injury had been reasonably foreseeable. A heavy workload, even if difficult and demanding, would not of itself made psychiatric injury foreseeable. There had been a reasonable explanation for each tearful episode and there was nothing unusual about her absence record. She had deliberately avoided any reference to illness being caused by depression. Her manager had not known what medication she had taken and knowledge of two colleagues could not be imputed to the Defendant.  Whilst the general awareness about work related stress might make it more likely that the risk to an individual would be foreseeable, the existence of a general awareness by the Defendant would not make psychiatric illness due to overwork foreseeable in a particular individual.  (2) Even if the injury had been foreseeable, the Defendant was not in breach of duty because it had acted reasonably in responding to complaints, reducing workload and changing the Claimant’s role.  Although the Defendant had breached the WTR, the Claimant had not worked significantly in excess of the 48 hour limit and, in any event, the Claimant would have had difficulty in demonstrating that the extra hours were causative of her illness.   (3)  There was no justification for imposing a cause of action for breach of statutory duty in respect of Regulation 4 of the WTR.

It is clear from this case and previous decisions, particularly Pakenham-Walsh v Connell Residential (2006) that a breach of the WTR will be a relevant factor in considering whether an employer had been negligent and whether any resulting injury had been reasonably foreseeable, but it is not a crucial factor and certainly does not in itself give rise to a cause of action.

Simon Cradick can be contacted on 029 2038 5464 or by email.