Introduction

The case of George Carroll against Dumfries and Galloway Council ([2024] CSOH 81) presents a significant examination of an employer's duty of care concerning psychiatric injury in the workplace. George Carroll, a qualified teacher with over two decades of experience in additional support for learning, brought a claim against his former employer, Dumfries and Galloway Council (the defender), alleging that the council failed in its duty to prevent psychiatric harm during an investigatory and disciplinary process.

The key issues revolve around whether the council's investigation into Carroll's registration status and subsequent disciplinary actions exacerbated his mental health condition, leading to his dismissal. The judgment scrutinizes the foreseeability of harm, the reasonableness of the employer's actions, and the implications for future employer-employee relations concerning mental health.

Summary of the Judgment

After extensive hearings spanning over eight days, Lord Fairley delivered a comprehensive judgment affirming the dismissal of the claim against Dumfries and Galloway Council. The court found that the council had acted within the bounds of reasonable care, relying on advice from occupational health professionals (OHAssist) and the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS). The judgment concluded that:

• The council had reasonable and proper cause to initiate and continue the formal investigation and disciplinary process.
• The defender was not aware, nor reasonably should have been aware, that their actions would exacerbate Carroll's depression beyond what was initially caused by the investigation.
• There was no breach of duty of reasonable care owed by the defender to Carroll.

Consequently, Carroll's claim for psychiatric injury was dismissed, and the council was absolved of liability.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that shape the landscape of delictual duties in employment:

• K v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (2020 SC 399): Establishes that employers have an inherent duty to safeguard both the mental and physical health of their employees from unnecessary risks.
• Hatton v Sutherland [2002] ICR 613: Clarifies the extent of foreseeability concerning psychiatric harm in employment contexts.
• Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1512 and Coventry University v Mian [2014] EWCA Civ 1275: These cases delve into the conditions under which employers may be held liable for exacerbating existing mental health conditions.

These precedents collectively underscore the necessity for employers to act within a reasonable scope of care, balancing procedural justice with the psychological well-being of employees.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on several pivotal points:

• Duty of Care and Foreseeability: The defender's duty of care was assessed based on what was foreseeable at the time of the actions. The court acknowledged that while the initial investigation did lead to Carroll developing depression, the continuation of the process post-September 2015 did not present a foreseeable risk of exacerbating his condition beyond what was already established.
• Reliance on Professional Advice: The defender acted based on repeated and clear advice from occupational health professionals, specifically OHAssist, which recommended proceeding with the disciplinary process to resolve organizational issues that were impacting Carroll's health.
• Range of Reasonable Actions: Drawing from Coventry University v Mian and Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the court determined that the defender's actions fell within the spectrum of reasonable responses, even if alternative actions could have been considered.
• Comparative Analysis: The treatment of Mrs. Caroline Farish, another employee with a similar registration issue but devoid of honesty concerns, was analyzed. The court found that differences in their roles and the nature of the issues justified the divergent handling, reinforcing the defender's stance.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the defender did not breach its duty of reasonable care, as their actions were informed, proportionate, and within the scope of professional guidance.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for employer-employee relations, particularly concerning mental health in the workplace:

• Clarification of Duty: Employers must understand the extent of their duty to prevent psychiatric harm, recognizing when such harm is foreseeable and taking appropriate measures.
• Reliance on Professional Guidance: The case underscores the importance of heeding advice from occupational health professionals, which can shield employers from liability provided they act in good faith.
• Procedural Justification: Employers are reminded to conduct investigations and disciplinary processes within a reasonable and justifiable framework, ensuring that actions do not unnecessarily exacerbate employee mental health issues.
• Policy Formulation: Organizations may need to revisit and possibly enhance their policies regarding mental health, ensuring they are robust and compliant with legal expectations to mitigate risks of liability.

Future cases involving psychiatric injury claims will likely reference this judgment, reinforcing the boundaries of employer liability and the necessity for balanced and informed decision-making processes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Duty of Care

In legal terms, a Duty of Care refers to the obligation one party has to avoid causing harm to another. In the employment context, employers inherently bear this duty to their employees, ensuring a safe and healthy work environment.

Foreseeability

Foreseeability determines whether a reasonable person in the position of the defendant could predict that their actions might cause harm to the plaintiff. If harm is foreseeable, there is a stronger basis for establishing liability.

Delictual Duties

Delictual Duties pertain to civil wrongs in Scots law, similar to torts in other jurisdictions. They involve breaches of duty that cause harm or loss, leading to legal liability.

Psychiatric Injury

Psychiatric Injury refers to mental harm inflicted upon an individual, such as depression or anxiety, often resulting from stressful or harmful actions by another party.

Conclusion

The judgment in George Carroll v. Dumfries and Galloway Council serves as a pivotal reference point in understanding the boundaries of employer liability concerning psychiatric harm in the workplace. It emphasizes the importance of reasonable actions, reliance on professional advice, and the nuanced assessment of foreseeable harm. Employers are thus encouraged to maintain diligent, informed, and compassionate approaches in their dealings with employees, particularly when addressing sensitive issues that may impact mental health.