"Whether a harmful reaction to the pressures of the workplace is reasonably foreseeable in the individual employee concerned. Such a reaction will have two components: (1) an injury to health; which (2) is attributable to stress at work."
"It will be easier to conclude that harm is foreseeable if the employer is putting pressure upon the individual employee which is in all the circumstances of the case unreasonable."
" . . . signs of stress and signs of impending harm to health. Stress is merely the mechanism which may but usually does not lead to damage to health."
"Unless he [the employer] knows of some particular problem or vulnerability, an employer is usually entitled to assume that his employee is up to the normal pressures of the job."
"As we have already said, an employer who tries to balance all those interests by offering confidential help to employees who fear that they may be suffering harmful levels of stress is unlikely to be found in breach of duty: except where he has been placing totally unreasonable demands upon an individual in circumstances where the risk of harm was clear."
"To trigger a duty to take steps, the indications of impending harm to health arising from stress at work must be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise that he should do something about it."
"But in view of the many difficulties of knowing when and why a particular person will go over the edge from pressure to stress and from stress to injury to health, the indications must be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise that he should do something about it."
"Christine would not be particularly good in a highly stressful environment but she is good at dealing with IT users, training and communication."
"Two things are now clear to me, and I so find. The reasonable man in McFee's [the managing director's] position would probably have done what Mcfee did. Even if he had reacted differently, it is clear from Dr Holden's evidence, which I accept, that by December 1996 intervention would have achieved almost nothing. Into 1997, on Dr Holden's evidence, which I accept, the dye was cast, although it was not until February that the open manifestation of her condition made it abundantly clear to the whole world that she was suffering anxiety and stress."
"agreed assignments and time scales were not being met nor fed back."
"It was agreed by Mr Altounyan that all requests for project work, meetings etc would be channelled through Mr Barton. This would ensure that the support resource was properly controlled and allocated."
"In the future individuals' performance will be primarily judged by these objectives."
"Barton knew it put pressure on the team, but his complaints, which I find he made, fell on the deaf ears of Mr Altounyan or the already bombarded ears of Mr Mcfee and were not taken seriously."
"Mr Altounyan in the summer of 1996 was acting contrary to the role of a reasonable employer in these respects."
"His actions were in breach of a reasonable duty of care. His demands were excessive. It was reasonably foreseeable that if that approach continued there could be repercussions in the form of members of the team not being able to cope."
"He was driven by deadlines. He seems, and I find as a fact, not to have been the best organiser and planner. He failed unreasonably to consider the possible repercussions, which were reasonably foreseeable."
"As at the second week of August 1996, it seems to me and I so find, that it is reasonably foreseeable that if he [Mr Altounyan] continues to behave like that, somebody is going to crack. Bearing in mind that the Claimant had three disciplines and the rest had two, that she was a woman and the rest men, I would expect the reasonable man to have said: 'If this continues she will crack up'."
"It seems clear to me, and I so find, that August 1996 was the start of the aggravation of the Claimant's pre-existing condition."
" . . . that if Mr Mcfee had known the real position, he would have taken firm steps to deal with Mr Altounyan, and had this happened, the Claimant's symptoms would have calmed down after her leave and she would not have suffered her relapse for at least a year after she in fact suffered it."
"46. Throughout the autumn of 1996, it is clear on the evidence of Dr Holden, which I accept, that the Claimant was getting worse, in the sense that the aggravation of her pre-existing condition was increasing. His view was, and I so find, that as 1996 drew on, it was actually becoming too late to stop it. By February 1997 she was clinically ill with, I find on the medical evidence, the depressive disorder described by Dr Holden. Intervention in February was too late, in his opinion, even if her work schedule had been honoured by Mr Altounyan. Intervention before December 1996 might have achieved, according to Dr Holden, which I accept, a partial remission on a sliding scale. That is, the earlier intervention back before the end of 1996, back through the autumnal months, the longer would have been the time before the final breakdown between six and nine months after her actual breakdown of the8 April 1997 . 47. Drs Holden and Goodhead differed on this. I listened with care, read their reports, including their joint report, and asked my own questions. Standing back and looking at the whole case, I am satisfied on balance of probabilities as follows. 1. What Mr Altounyan was doing through the mid-summer months of 1996 was not the 'normal pressures of work', to use the Court of Appeal's expression in Hatton v Sutherland. 2. Although Mr McFee did not know it, in fact the Claimant was having to work much harder than he thought and in three separate but competing disciplines. 3. Mr Altounyan's approach, combining deadlines with assessment of the employees' performance, effectively forced the Claimant to pack into an already long working week extra and often unexpected work. 4. For the reasons given already, it was the Claimant who was reasonably foreseeably the most likely to crack yet he continued to drive her. He was not cruel but he was insensitive and unthinking, cavalier may be the best word. 5. His conduct amounted to a breach of the duty of care, for which the Defendants are vicariously liable. 6. As Dr Holden told me in re-examination, and I accept, had there been some intervention in August 1996, then it would have made a difference. 7. Distilling all the medical evidence, it seems to me likely that had the regime changed upon the Claimant's return from leave, then she would not have had what was effectively a nervous breakdown in April 1997. On the other hand, the pressures on her were immense, over and above those of her work; they would have got no better. It seems to me inevitable that sooner or later she would have been overborne by them. I cannot overlook her counsel's argument that whenever she had gone off work before it was always because of external fault, never because of her own inner weaknesses."
"If this continues she will crack up."
"I am satisfied that Mr Altounyan in the summer of 1996 was acting contrary to the role of a reasonable employer in these respects. His actions were in breach of a reasonable duty of care. His demands were excessive. It was reasonably foreseeable that if that approach continued there could be repercussions in the form of the members of the team not being able to cope."
"As at the second week of August 1996, it seems to me and I so find, that it is reasonably foreseeable that if he continues to behave like that, somebody is going to crack. Bearing in mind that the Claimant had three disciplines and the rest had two, that she was a woman and the rest men, I would expect a reasonable man to have said: 'If this continues she will crack up'."