Commentary

(c) Apportionment for multiple causes

Division AII Contract of Employment
| Commentary

(c) Apportionment for multiple causes

| Commentary

(c)     Apportionment for multiple causes

Another aspect of Hale LJ's propositions that subsequently caused some disagreement concerned whether to apportion damages (or, here, compensation in employment or discrimination law) if the evidence shows that the mental injury had more than one cause in addition to anything referable to the employer's breach of duty (eg personal, home or financial pressures). The relevant propositions are as follows:

''(15)     Where the harm suffered has more than one cause, the employer should only pay for that proportion of the harm suffered which is attributable to his wrongdoing, unless the harm is truly indivisible. It is for the defendant to raise the question of apportionment.

(16)     The assessment of damages will take account of any pre-existing disorder or vulnerability and of the chance that the claimant would have succumbed to a stress-related disorder in any

To continue reading
Analyse the law and clarify obscure passages all within a practical context.