Deadman v Bristol City Council 31st July 2007
Deadman v Bristol City Council 31st July 2007
Mr Deadman had been employed by the City Council for some 30 years. In February 1998 a female employee made a complaint against him of harassment. The complaint was dealt with under the City Council’s harassment procedure. The adjudicating panel found the complaint to be proved. However, the adjudicating panel consisted of two managers instead of the three specified in the relevant procedure. The result was that Mr Deadman successfully appealed their decision. A decision was later made to rehear the original complaint, a decision which was imparted to Mr Deadman by leaving a letter on his desk.After a trial lasting ten days the trial judge found in favour of the Claimant. He did so on an unusual basis. He rejected the claim in negligence. However, he concluded that here was a contractual duty to act “sensitively” contained in the City Council’s equal Opportunities Policy and that leaving a letter on his desk was “most insensitive” and a breach of that contractual duty. He also concluded that the failure to appoint 3 members to sit on the panel was a breach of contract.
Allowing the City Council’s appeal the Court of Appeal rejected the conclusion that there was a contractual duty to act sensitively, concluding instead that the references to acting sensitively were simply an acceptance by the Council of the way in which they should conduct themselves and that in the absence of any indication of illness they were not in breach of that duty. They concluded that the failure to appoint 3 members to the adjudication panel was a breach of contract but that the damage claimed was too remote.
Comment
In this decision the Court of Appeal make it clear that a Claimant will not often have a better chance of success in a stress at work claim by putting the claim forward as a breach of contract rather than as a breach of the duty of care.
The Court of Appeal were unwilling to conclude that the manner in which information was conveyed could give rise to a liability when the information itself did not.
Andrew Hogarth QC