This Practice Note examines the legal framework governing occupational stress claims and the circumstances in which an employer may be liable. It considers the development and application of the Hatton guidelines with a particular focus on foreseeability as the central issue in establishing liability. The Practice Note reviews the factors courts consider when assessing whether an employer was on notice of a risk of harm, including workload concerns, stress-related absences, employee complaints, occupational health involvement and the nature of the work being undertaken. This Practice Note is not intended to be a definitive source of all information on this topic, but to act as a source from which practitioners can begin their own research. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Occupational stress claims—breach, causation and apportionment. Occupational stress claims arise in instances where an employee suffers from a recognisable psychiatric condition (commonly depression and anxiety) as a result of their employer’s conduct. They are based on exposure to harmful levels of occupational stress, and are almost invariably,

This Practice Note considers the central elements of occupational stress claims once foreseeability has been established, namely breach of duty, causation and apportionment. It examines the steps employers may reasonably be expected to take in response to a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury, together with the evidential and medical issues that arise when establishing causation. The Practice Note also explores the principles governing divisible and indivisible psychiatric injury, material contribution and the assessment and apportionment of damages in complex occupational stress claims. This Practice Note is not intended to be a definitive source of all information on this topic, but to act as a source from which practitioners can begin their own research. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Occupational stress claims—liability and foreseeability. Breach of duty If it is established that a defendant could foresee imminent harm arising from a claimant’s exposure to occupational stress, the defendant will be under a duty to take reasonable steps to reduce the claimant’s exposure to unreasonable levels of occupational stress

1 Purpose and scope 1.1 The Company is committed to protecting the health, safety and welfare of its employees, promoting positive mental health for all its staff, and tackling the causes of stress and work-related mental ill health. 1.2 The Company aims to promote a positive working environment where: 1.2.1 it works with employees to promote the physical and mental health of all employees; 1.2.2 all staff feel able to talk openly about their mental health and do not fear bullying or harassment, or, where their condition is a disability, discrimination; 1.2.3 people with mental health issues have the opportunity to participate in the workplace. 1.3 The Company recognises that stress in the workplace is a health and safety issue and acknowledges the importance of identifying and reducing the causes of workplace stress. 1.4 The Company also recognises that an employee’s performance or behaviour can be affected if they are experiencing mental ill health, and that appropriate support and adjustments should be explored before considering any formal measures such as disciplinary action. 1.5 This policy applies to all staff, including employees, temporary and agency workers, other contractors, interns,

This checklist highlights the key regulatory requirements for financial services firms concerning reverse stress testing. The rules are set out in chapter 7.5 of the Prudential sourcebook for MiFID Investment Firms (MIFIDPRU 7.5) in the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Handbook (where reverse stress testing forms part of the internal capital adequacy and risk assessment (ICARA) process) and in the Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Part of the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) Rulebook. What is reverse stress testing? MiFIDPRU and the Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Part give similar but not identical definitions of reverse stress testing. For the purposes of MIFIDPRU, reverse stress testing carried out by a firm should involve the following: • identifying a range of adverse circumstances which would cause the firm’s business model to become unviable • assessing the likelihood that these adverse circumstances will occur • determining whether the risk of the firm’s business model becoming unviable is unacceptably

This Practice Note examines issues that may arise where an employee is experiencing work-related stress (or occupational stress), ie stress that may be caused or exacerbated by work, or mental ill health affecting the employee’s work or attendance. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) defines stress as ‘the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them’. Stress is not in itself an illness, but can make individuals ill, eg by leading to conditions such as anxiety and depression. Stress, anxiety and depression can also increase the risk of conditions like heart disease, back pain, gastrointestinal illnesses or skin conditions. According to Acas guidance on supporting mental health at work, common mental health issues include stress (this is not classed as a medical condition but can still have a serious impact on wellbeing), depression and anxiety. Less common ones include bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. In some cases, these conditions may amount to a disability—see: Disability issues, below. This Practice Note covers: • the benefits

Please click for an Excel version of this Precedent and an illustrative

Law360: The Bank of England (BoE) has said it will consider the risks posed by offshore reinsurance contracts when it carries out a stress test on life insurers in 2025.

Law360: Trustees of defined benefit (DB) pension schemes might use data from the next official insurance stress test when they come to decide on buying out their liabilities, experts said on 18 November 2024.

[ In the county court at [insert] OR In the High Court of Justice ] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Specify Specialist court] ] [ [Insert location] District Registry ] Claim No. [insert claim number] [Insert name and details of the Claimant]        Claimant -and- [Insert name and details of the Defendant]        Defendant __________________________________ DEFENCE __________________________________ 1 Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Particulars of Claim are admitted. 2 Paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted, save that it is denied that the letter from the Claimant’s General Practitioner dated [insert date] stated that [his OR her] condition had improved over the past year. The letter stated that the Claimant had last received treatment for anxiety and depression during [insert year], that [he OR she] had made a complete recovery, and that [his OR her] anxiety and depression was unlikely to recur. 3 Paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted. 4 It is denied that on [insert date], another employee of the Defendant made a complaint of bullying and harassment by [insert name, eg Mr Bloggs]. On [insert date], an employee wrote to [insert name, eg Mr Jones] stating that [he OR

[ In the county court at [insert] OR In the High Court of Justice ] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Specify Specialist court] ] [ [Insert location] District Registry ] Claim No. [insert claim number] Between [Insert name and details of the Claimant]        Claimant -and- [Insert name and details of the Defendant]        Defendant __________________________________ Particulars of claim __________________________________ 1 At all material times, the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a [insert Claimant’s job title and location eg mail sorter at its Islington office] and acting in the course of [his OR her] employment. The Claimant’s employment commenced on [insert date]. At all material times, the Claimant’s line manager was [insert name of Claimant’s line manager, eg Mr Bloggs]. [Mr Bloggs’] line manager was [insert name, eg Mr Jones]. The Defendant’s Managing Director was [insert name, eg, Mr Smith]. 2 The Defendant owed the Claimant the following duties in tort and/or contract: 2.1 a duty to take reasonable care of the Claimant’s health and safety, which included employing competent fellow workers; and/or 2.2 a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the Claimant from suffering foreseeable psychiatric injury in the course of or as a result of [his OR her] employment,

A breach of personal data can arise in two ways: (1) a breach of a free standing right of privacy (which used to be known as misuse of confidential information) and (2) a breach of the rules concerning data protection. In some senses the distinction does not matter as both stem from breach of the right of privacy enshrined in art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in the first case damages for stress and inconvenience are simply not available under current UK law. In relation to the second class there is now no or little doubt that such damages are claimable as a matter of principle; see Google v Vidal-Hall. However the appropriate practical means whereby the level of damages are to be calculated has yet to be set. Although such damages are 'European' in nature since

Personal Injury analysis: In Marsh v Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was found liable for prolonging a disciplinary investigation and accompanying suspension against the claimant prison officer. These failings were found to have caused the premature termination of the claimant’s career due to psychiatric injury, and he was awarded over £286,000. Andrew Roy and Vanessa Cashman, barristers at 12 King’s Bench Walk, were counsel for the claimant in what they describe as an unusual and hard-fought stress at work claim.