Employment Law - Vicarious Liability - Harassment - Depression

The case of Hammond v INTC Network Services Ltdoperational decision, the commercial world would grind
[2007], concerned issues relating to vicarious liabilityto a halt.
where a claimant complained that the defendant'sFurthermore, the court felt that it was important in a
conduct causing him to suffer clinical depression. Thenegligence claim concerned with workplace stress
claimant in this case was employed by the defendantthat in order for an employer to be liable it had to be
until he was eventually made redundant.demonstrated that the employer knew (or ought to
The claimant was suffering from clinical depressionhave known) that the employee would not be able
which he maintained had been caused principally byto withstand the pressure of the job.
the conduct of the defendant, its employees orThe court further felt that the documents were
agents. He alleged that this was either negligent orgenuine contemporaneous documents, and were the
amounted to harassment contrary to the Protectionbest evidence of the defendant's conduct at the
from Harassment Act 1997 ("the Act").time in question. They established that the events
The claimant made a number of allegations in relationleading up to the employee's redundancy either did
to the employer's conduct that he argued amountednot happen at all, or were the result of reasonable
to harassment. The conduct in question included themanagement decisions. The court therefore stated
fact that he had been moved to another part of athat this case was the complete opposite of
project for a week.harassment. Accordingly in such circumstances neither
In response to the defendant's reliance onclaim could be allowed to succeed. In addition, and in
contemporaneous documents, the claimant assertedrelation to the claim for negligence, the claimant had
that the documents had either been forged ornot shown that his disorder had been foreseeable by
altered.the defendant. As a result, the court dismissed the
The court, in applying settled principles, held thatclaims.
conduct had to have an element of real seriousness© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does
in order to amount to harassment under the Act.not provide a comprehensive or complete statement
The conduct had to be deemed to be oppressiveof the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it
and unacceptable. If interpretation of the law meantconstitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight
that employers were faced with allegations ofgeneral issues. Specialist legal advice should always be
harassment every time that they made ansought in relation to particular circumstances.