- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
George Carroll against Dumfries and Galloway Council (Court of Session)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff, a qualified teacher specialising in additional support for learning, was employed by the Defendant Council as Principal Teacher of Pupil Support at a secondary school from January 2013. The Plaintiff held registration only in the further education section of the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) register and was not registered in the secondary section, which the Defendant understood was required for teaching in secondary schools. In 2015, concerns were raised by the Defendant about the Plaintiff’s registration status and honesty regarding it, leading to a formal investigation and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The Plaintiff was removed from teaching duties during the investigation and eventually dismissed in May 2016 due to lack of secondary registration. The Plaintiff developed a major depressive disorder during the investigation, which was attributed to the stress of the disciplinary process. The Plaintiff claimed damages for psychiatric injury caused by the Defendant’s handling of the investigation and disciplinary process. The case proceeded through an eight-day evidential hearing with oral and written submissions, including joint agreed facts on injury, causation, and quantum of damages.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff to avoid causing foreseeable psychiatric harm during the investigation and disciplinary process.
- Whether the Defendant breached that duty by continuing the investigation and disciplinary process after the Plaintiff developed a psychiatric injury.
- Whether the Defendant’s decision to initiate and continue a formal investigation and disciplinary proceedings was within the range of reasonable responses available to an employer.
- Whether the Plaintiff’s psychiatric injury was caused or exacerbated by the Defendant’s actions.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Defendant was not initially in breach of duty as it could not have foreseen psychiatric harm before 21 September 2015.
- From late September 2015, the Defendant knew or ought to have known the Plaintiff was suffering from depression caused by the investigation and disciplinary process, thus had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid further harm.
- The Defendant breached its duty by continuing the process despite knowledge of harm, failing to halt the investigation and disciplinary proceedings.
- There was never a proper basis for a formal investigation or disciplinary process; issues could have been dealt with informally or under separate procedures.
- The Defendant’s persistence exacerbated the Plaintiff’s condition, which might have been avoided with earlier cessation of the process.
Defendant's Arguments
- The investigation was justified and necessary given the related issues of registration status, job applications, and honesty.
- The Defendant did not know or ought to have known of the Plaintiff’s psychiatric illness until after September 2015, and even then, the illness’s exacerbation was not foreseeable.
- Occupational health advice consistently indicated that the Plaintiff’s symptoms would continue until resolution of organisational issues and investigations, with no suggestion to halt the process.
- The Defendant’s conduct, including removal from teaching duties and continuation of disciplinary procedures, was within the range of reasonable employer responses.
- The Defendant could not have anticipated later changes in GTCS registration policy allowing the Plaintiff’s ASN registration to cover secondary teaching.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| K v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland 2020 SC 399 | Employer’s duty to take reasonable care to safeguard employees from foreseeable psychiatric harm; requirement that harm must be foreseeable to the employer. | Established the framework for assessing employer liability for psychiatric injury in employment, confirming that a duty of care exists but breach depends on foreseeability and reasonableness of employer’s actions. |
| Hatton v Sutherland [2002] ICR 613 | Clarification of foreseeability and duty of care relating to psychiatric harm in employment; employer's obligation to "do something about it" once harm is foreseeable. | Used to illustrate that once employer knows of psychiatric injury, it must take reasonable steps to prevent further harm. |
| Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995] ICR 702 | Employers’ liability for psychiatric injury caused or exacerbated by work-related stress and the need for reasonable care once harm is foreseeable. | Referenced as an analogous case where continuation of harmful processes led to employer liability. |
| Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1512 | Review of English case law on employer liability for psychiatric injury; scope of reasonable employer responses. | Supported the principle that a breach occurs only if employer’s decision lies outside the range of reasonable actions. |
| Coventry University v Mian [2014] EWCA Civ 1275 | Standard for breach of duty in disciplinary proceedings; employer’s actions must be within range of reasonable responses. | Applied to confirm that formal disciplinary processes may be reasonable if justified by circumstances. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the case by applying established principles governing employer liability for psychiatric harm, focusing on the knowledge and reasonable foresight of the Defendant at the relevant times. It emphasised that the question was not whether harm was foreseeable with hindsight but whether the Defendant knew or ought to have known of the Plaintiff’s psychiatric condition during 2015 and 2016.
The court found that the Defendant received clear and consistent advice from the GTCS that secondary registration was required for teaching in secondary schools, and thus the investigation into the Plaintiff’s registration status and related honesty issues was justified and within the range of reasonable employer responses.
Regarding the disputed factual issue of whether the Plaintiff misrepresented his registration status at a key meeting, the court preferred the evidence of the Defendant's witnesses and the Plaintiff’s union representative over the Plaintiff’s own evidence, concluding that the Plaintiff did represent he held secondary registration.
The court accepted that the Plaintiff developed a major depressive disorder caused by the Defendant’s investigation and disciplinary process. However, it found that the Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff’s condition by late September 2015 and received repeated occupational health advice indicating that the Plaintiff’s symptoms would persist until resolution of the disciplinary process, with no advice to halt the process.
The court reasoned that even if the Defendant ought to have foreseen that continuing the process might exacerbate the Plaintiff’s condition, pausing it carried a foreseeable risk of prolonging the illness. The Defendant’s decision to proceed was therefore reasonable and within the range of acceptable employer actions.
The court distinguished the Plaintiff’s situation from that of a comparator employee who was treated differently, noting material differences in circumstances and responsibilities.
In conclusion, the court held that the Defendant had reasonable and proper cause to initiate and continue the investigation and disciplinary process, did not breach its duty of care, and that continuation of the process was not unreasonable in the circumstances.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision was to grant DECREE OF ABSOLVITOR, dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for psychiatric injury.
This decision means the Defendant is not liable for the psychiatric harm claimed by the Plaintiff. The ruling confirms that an employer’s duty to avoid psychiatric harm requires reasonable care based on knowledge at the time, and that continuation of disciplinary processes may be justified even where psychiatric harm occurs, provided the employer acts within a reasonable range of responses and follows occupational health advice. No new legal precedent was established beyond applying existing principles to the facts.
Alert