Intel Incorporation (UK) Ltd v Daw

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal by the Appellant against a judgment in a personal injury action in which the trial judge awarded damages to the Appellee. The Appellee was employed by the Appellant and suffered a breakdown in mental health attributed to chronic depression, which she alleged was caused by the Appellant's negligence as her employer. The trial judge found that by early March 2001 the Appellant should have known that the demands placed on the Appellee were unreasonable and posed a clear risk to her health, and that immediate action at that time could have prevented a serious breakdown. The Appellant challenges liability and, if unsuccessful, contests the award of damages for future loss of earnings.

The Appellee had worked for the Appellant since 1988, progressing to a senior analyst role by 2000, with a heavy workload related to payroll integration following company acquisitions. The Appellee had a history of post-natal depression but was considered a capable and conscientious employee. Management reorganization led to unclear reporting lines and conflicting demands from multiple managers, contributing to her stress. Despite multiple complaints and a detailed memorandum in March 2001 outlining her difficulties, including excessive workload and bureaucratic obstacles, adequate assistance was not provided. The Appellee’s mental health deteriorated, culminating in a breakdown in June 2001 and subsequent absence from work.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant breached its duty of care to the Appellee by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to her mental health arising from work-related stress.
2. Whether the trial judge correctly assessed the foreseeability of harm and the adequacy of the Appellant’s response to the Appellee’s complaints and health status.
3. Whether the award for future loss of earnings was appropriate, particularly regarding the likelihood and extent of future depressive episodes and their impact on earning capacity.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The window of opportunity to prevent a serious breakdown closed in April 2001; prior complaints would not have led a reasonable employer to foresee a real risk of injury.
• The duty to act immediately upon early March 2001 complaints imposed too high a burden on the Appellant, who was unaware that the window was closing.
• The provision of a confidential counselling service and medical assistance discharged the Appellant’s duty of care, as it was reasonable to expect the Appellee to use these resources.
• The award for future loss of earnings should be limited to the five-year period before 2006, as there was only a 50% chance of further depressive episodes beyond that date.
• The multiplier for future loss should reflect a cut-off in 2006, based on medical evidence.

Appellee's Arguments

• The Appellant failed to take urgent and appropriate action after the early March 2001 memorandum, despite clear indications of excessive workload and stress.
• The counselling service was insufficient to discharge the duty of care given the severity and nature of the Appellee’s stress and workload.
• The future loss of earnings award appropriately considered the risk of further depressive episodes, with the medical evidence supporting a high risk of recurrence but not necessarily of the same severity.
• The multiplier of 6 for future loss was justified given the Appellee’s vulnerability and prospects of partial recovery with potential intermittent employment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Hatton v Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76	Guidance on employer’s liability for psychiatric illness caused by work-related stress, including foreseeability, duty to act, and assessment of reasonable steps.	The court applied the detailed principles from Hatton to assess foreseeability, employer knowledge, and the adequacy of steps taken, emphasizing the need for immediate action upon clear indications of harm.
Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] UKHL 13	Confirms that employers can be in continuing breach of duty of care causing serious nervous breakdown, and the importance of facts in each case.	The court endorsed the principle that every case depends on its facts and supported the trial judge’s findings of breach and causation in the present case.
Stokes v Guest-Keen and Nettlefold (Bolts & Nuts) Limited [1968] 1 WLR 1776	General principle on employer's liability for injury caused by workplace conditions.	The court cited this case to underline the foundational principles of employer liability applied in the current matter.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed factual and legal analysis, beginning with the Appellee’s employment history, her demonstrated capability, and the management failures that led to excessive and conflicting demands. The judge’s findings that the Appellant should have foreseen the risk of harm by early March 2001 were supported by evidence of repeated complaints, a detailed memorandum outlining the stressors, and the absence of adequate assistance despite knowledge of the Appellee’s history and situation.

The court emphasized that the presence of a counselling service does not automatically discharge an employer’s duty, particularly where workload reduction and management intervention are necessary. The Appellee’s failure to use the counselling service was not blameworthy given the circumstances.

Regarding causation, the court preferred expert evidence indicating that timely intervention could have mitigated the severity of the breakdown. The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the risk was not foreseeable and found that urgent action was required but not taken.

On the issue of damages, the court found the judge’s approach to future loss appropriate, balancing the risk of recurrence of depressive episodes with the possibility of partial recovery and intermittent employment. The multiplier applied was considered reasonable given the evidence.

Holding and Implications

The court dismissed the appeal against liability and the challenge to the award of damages for future loss of earnings.

The holding confirms that employers owe a clear duty to take reasonable and timely action to prevent foreseeable psychiatric injury caused by work-related stress, especially when an employee provides detailed and credible complaints. The provision of counselling services alone is insufficient where management failings persist. The decision reinforces the application of principles established in Hatton and Barber, emphasizing fact-specific inquiry and the necessity of effective management responses.

The direct effect is the affirmation of the trial judge’s findings and award. No new precedent was established beyond the consistent application of existing law.