Boylin v The Christie NHS Foundation

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant, referred to as the Trust, is a major cancer centre with a large workforce and significant research and clinical activities. The Claimant, referred to as the Plaintiff, was the Associate Director of Human Resources (HR) at the Trust in 2010, earning a substantial salary and with a long career in HR management. The Trust initiated an executive review in 2010, appointing an external consultant, referred to as the Interim Director, to assess and lead the HR function. The Interim Director was appointed as the Plaintiff’s line manager, causing tension and a difficult working relationship between the two.

The Plaintiff alleged that between late September and early November 2010, she suffered workplace stress from bullying and harassment by the Interim Director, resulting in severe psychiatric injury. The claim was brought under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and common law negligence. The factual circumstances were contested during a five-day trial.

The background included a restructuring of the HR function, with the Interim Director appointed as interim director of workforce and line manager of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff resented the appointment and perceived a threat to her position. The Trust’s Board and senior executives were involved in decisions regarding the executive review and HR management changes.

Events from September to November 2010 involved difficult interactions, including a series of meetings, communications, and a particularly serious incident on 10 November 2010, when the Interim Director lost her temper, swore at, and threatened the Plaintiff. The Trust promptly terminated the Interim Director’s engagement after the Plaintiff’s complaint.

The Plaintiff subsequently went on sick leave, was treated medically for mental health issues, and her employment was later terminated following disciplinary proceedings related to conduct during her sick leave. The Plaintiff’s claim alleged harassment and negligence causing psychiatric injury.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Interim Director's conduct towards the Plaintiff amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, requiring a course of conduct of at least two occasions.
2. Whether the Trust breached its common law duty of care to the Plaintiff by failing to prevent psychiatric injury caused by workplace stress and management decisions.
3. Whether the Plaintiff’s psychiatric injury was causally linked to the Defendant’s conduct or management process.
4. The assessment of foreseeability of psychiatric harm in the workplace context.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Majrowski v St Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224	Definition and threshold of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, requiring conduct to be oppressive and unacceptable to sustain criminal liability.	The court applied the principle to determine that only conduct crossing the threshold of oppressive and unacceptable behaviour would constitute harassment under the Act. It found the Interim Director’s conduct on 10 November 2010 crossed the line, but no course of conduct was established.
Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1492	Clarification that conduct must be oppressive and unacceptable, not merely unreasonable or regrettable, to constitute harassment.	The court used this precedent to reinforce the threshold test for harassment, concluding that earlier conduct was difficult but did not meet the threshold except for the single incident on 10 November 2010.
Sutherland v Hatton [2002] EWCA Civ 76	Common law duty of care regarding psychiatric injury caused by workplace stress, focusing on foreseeability and employer knowledge.	The court applied the principles to assess whether the Trust breached duty of care, concluding the Trust’s management decisions were reasonable and did not breach duty except for the single incident of misconduct.
Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] UKHL 13	Foreseeability of psychiatric harm in employment context and employer’s duty to take reasonable care.	The court considered foreseeability in relation to the Plaintiff’s psychiatric injury and concluded that the single incident was not reasonably foreseeable to cause significant psychiatric illness.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the factual matrix, including the background of the executive review, the roles of the Plaintiff and Interim Director, and the interactions between them. It acknowledged the difficult working relationship and the Plaintiff’s strong sense of grievance arising from management changes and perceived threat to her position.

Applying the legal test for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the court found that the Interim Director’s conduct on 10 November 2010, involving swearing and threats, crossed the threshold from unreasonable to oppressive and unacceptable. However, the court did not find a "course of conduct" as required by the Act, since this was an isolated incident.

Regarding common law negligence, the court applied established principles concerning employer liability for psychiatric injury caused by workplace stress. It found that the Trust’s decisions to conduct an executive review and restructure HR were legitimate business decisions within the Board’s discretion and did not breach the duty of care.

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s allegations of bullying or harassment on other occasions, finding the Interim Director’s conduct generally professional except for the single incident. It also found that the Plaintiff’s distress largely stemmed from her own negative attitude and sense of grievance about the management process rather than actionable misconduct.

On causation, the court accepted expert medical evidence that the Plaintiff’s psychiatric condition was not attributable solely or materially to the single incident on 10 November 2010 but rather to the overall management process and subsequent events including dismissal and litigation. The court also found the psychiatric injury was not reasonably foreseeable from the single incident.

The Trust acted promptly and appropriately upon receiving the complaint by terminating the Interim Director’s engagement, demonstrating reasonable management of the incident.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff’s claim.

The court held that although the Interim Director’s conduct on 10 November 2010 was improper, it was an isolated incident and did not constitute a course of conduct amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Trust was not in breach of its common law duty of care in relation to the Plaintiff’s psychiatric injury arising from workplace stress and management decisions.

The decision underscores the importance of establishing a course of conduct for harassment claims and confirms that legitimate business decisions by an employer, including restructuring and management reviews, do not constitute breaches of duty absent unreasonable conduct. The case also highlights the necessity of causation and foreseeability in claims for psychiatric injury due to workplace stress.

No new legal precedent was established; the ruling applies existing principles to the facts of the case and clarifies their application in a complex workplace dispute.