Side Navigation
The Brief
28.04.2009
Bullying at Work. Recent Supreme Court cases and trends from the UK
The Supreme Court has recently overturned two High Court decisions in relation to bullying and stress at work.
The cases illustrate the difficulties faced by a Plaintiff in proving a case of personal injury against an employer. This is good news for employers. However, the Supreme Court endorsed the principals set down by the High Court in various cases and the law remains unchanged…employers always need to be proactive in dealing with complaints of bullying, have correct and effective procedures and implement them fairly.
Quigley –v- Complex Tooling and Moulding Limited (2008) ELR 297
Mr Quigley won his High Court action for damages for personal injury against the company. The Court accepted that he had been subjected to bullying and that he had suffered depression.
The Company appealed on two grounds:
1. the behaviour did not constitute bullying
2. he failed to prove his depression resulted from the behaviour.
The Supreme Court ruled that he had been subjected to bullying. The Court accepted the definition of bullying as set out in SI/17/2002 … The Code of Practice Detailing Procedures for Addressing Bullying in the Workplace. The Court accepted the submission that bullying must be repeated, inappropriate and undermine the dignity of the employee at work.
However, on the causation side the Court disallowed his claim and the High Court award of damages. The Court held that on the medical evidence submitted he had not proven that his illness was linked to the bullying. His medical reports and testimony reported that he suffered stress from the dismissal and the subsequent unfair dismissal proceedings but that there was no medical evidence of a link with the bullying. He could not therefore get damages for personal injury as a consequence of his dismissal or from the involvement in the unfair dismissal case.
This decision is in line with another recent Supreme Court Case Berber –v- Dunnes Stores. (2009) IESC 10
In Berber case Mr Berber succeeded in the High Court in his claim for personal injury and was awarded €72k. He had worked as a manager, went out ill with stress. The company agreed a return to work but wished to move him to a different branch. There was correspondence on his behalf with the company from his solicitor about the move. He did not want to move until he had an opportunity to speak to the owner of the Company Mrs Heffernan. The Company insisted he move. The High Court having heard all the evidence and decided that the damage was foreseeable as employer had been informed of his difficulties and did not act reasonably in requiring him to move branches. The employer was therefore on notice that he might become stressed and suffer illness. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court and judgement was delivered on the 12th of February. The Court allowed the appealed and ruled with the employer that the employer had acted reasonably.
UK developments
However, employers should be warned of the possibility of two UK cases being followed in Ireland. These cases extend the concept of vicarious liability to breach of statutory duty by an employee in bullying incidents and have held the employer vicariously liable for the bullying of the employees. So far these cases have not been considered by the Irish Courts.
If these cases were followed in Ireland it will be easier for plaintiffs to prove their case as they avoid the difficulties of the personal injury claims.
This reinforces the importance for employers to have corrects policies and procedures but more importantly to train staff about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
Catherine O’Connor
April 2009
For further information please contact Catherine O'Connor on
To download a copy of the slides from this presentation (in pdf format) please cick here here
© 2006 MJ O'Connor Solicitors | Disclaimer | Site managed and developed by ReganLowey