[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Pratley v Surrey County Council [2002] EWHC 1608 (QB) (31 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/1608.html Cite as: [2002] EWHC 1608 (QB)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		31st July 2002

Mr Justice BUCKLEY:

1. The Claimant, Miss Maureen Pratley, is 49 years of age. In 1996 she was working for Surrey County Council (“the Council”) in its Social Services Department at Leatherhead as a case manager for the elderly. She had been employed in that post since 1994. On 25th September 1996 she left work and consulted her doctor who provided a sick certificate. His diagnosis was “stress”. Miss Pratley has not worked since. The consultant psychiatrists instructed by the parties agree, and I accept, that she suffered a moderate or severe depressive episode, which qualifies as a recognised mental disorder or psychiatric illness.
2. Miss Pratley now sues the Council for loss and damages, alleging that the Council was negligent in failing to take reasonable care for her health.

Background

3. Prior to her job at Leatherhead, Miss Pratley had worked for the Council since 1986 at Keswick Residential Home for the Elderly and as an assistant team manager at its Tiltwood Residential Home for the Elderly as Human Resources Manager. Before working for the Council Miss Pratley had qualified and worked as a nurse both in the RAF and at Leatherhead Cottage Hospital. Her appraisal at Tiltwood and as case manager at Leatherhead consistently assessed her as “grade A”, the highest grade and her salary rose accordingly. Her contractual hours of work were 36 hours per week and if overtime was worked that had to be reported and a record kept. Overtime was not paid but time off in lieu (TIOL) was operated and used by Miss Pratley. Her job entailed assessing clients and their needs and, if they met the relevant criteria, formulating a plan. Thereafter she would arrange or “purchase” the appropriate services and equipment. Plans could involve care at home, in the community or in a home and visits both to assess clients and to monitor them were involved. The care of clients at home or in the community involved more active management than when a client was cared for in a home.
4. Mrs. Elrick, who is now a self-employed consultant in social care, was employed by the Council for over twenty years upto 1997. She was the Locality Care Manager in Leatherhead and interviewed and appointed Miss Pratley as a case manager in 1994.
5. Case managers and others worked under considerable pressure due to the demands upon their services and a lack of funding. Mrs. Elrick said in evidence that in her experience, it was generally true that in the social services money was not available to provide the services demanded to the level that both the social workers and public would like. She accepted that this led to pressures on staff and that where there were such pressures that could lead to stress. She also frankly accepted that she knew that undue pressure or stress created a risk of injury to health. There is no doubt the Leatherhead office, at least, was under pressure at the material time from the sheer volume of work and funding restrictions. It is readily understandable that work pressures are exacerbated in such a job when the worker, the case managers here, desperately want to provide a good service to their clients but are restricted through overwork or under funding.
6. None of this was in dispute.

The Claimant’s Case

7. Mr. Langstaff QC for Miss Pratley, submitted, in short, that there could not be a clearer case of foreseeability of the risk of injury. He referred, in particular, to the Council’s own evidence through Mrs. Elrick. He submitted that the stress of overwork was apparent and had been complained of and that in March 1996 and again in August Miss Pratley had, in effect, warned of the injury to her health if nothing was done to lighten her burden. That, in particular, Mrs. Elrick had promised to introduce a system of “stacking” new cases just before Miss Pratley went on holiday at the end of August and that the failure to honour that promise by the time Miss Pratley returned to work in September was a substantial cause of her illness. The Claimant’s case is more fully deployed under Particulars of Negligence in the Particulars of Claim but in the end the main thrust of the case was as I have summarised.

The Defendant’s Case

8. Mr. Norman for the Council submitted that there was nothing sufficient to put the Council on notice of a particular risk to Miss Pratley’s health, at least before August 1996. Indeed Miss Pratley had hidden from the Council that the two weeks she had off work in March 1996 might have been stress-related. The meeting with Mrs. Elrick, just before Miss Pratley went on holiday for three weeks, did not put the Council on notice that action, in particular “stacking”, had to be taken by her return in order to avoid a real risk of injury. Generally, the Council provided access to confidential stress counselling, occupational health facilities and a private health scheme through BUPA. Mrs. Elrick had regular documented meetings with Miss Pratley to monitor and discuss any problems and it could not reasonably have done more.

The Evidence and Findings

9. In the end, there was very little between Dr. Cantopher, the consultant psychiatrist called on behalf of Miss Pratley and Dr. Reveley, on behalf of the Council. The part played in depressive episodes by life events and biological vulnerability remains the subject of debate in medical circles. However, it was agreed that depression (in the sense of its cause) is multifactorial. As I understand the evidence, it was that a life event could be the trigger for a depressive episode. Dr. Cantopher explained that particular types of occurrences are now recognised, for example: loss, entrapment or humiliation and that loss could include the loss of a cherished idea. He explained that if Miss Pratley had seen “stacking” as a solution to the over work or pressure, the fact that it had not been introduced on her return from holiday could have acted as the loss of a cherished idea and led to a feeling of entrapment.
10. Mr. Norman made the point that there are no contemporary documents recording complaints by Miss Pratley specifically about the failure to implement “stacking”. There are references to abuse received at a local hospital and the general level of work, but not specifically “stacking”.
11. It may be that Miss Pratley, in her own mind, has exaggerated the impact of finding that “stacking” had not been implemented on her return to work. But on the evidence as a whole I find that returning to work on Monday, 23rd September to find that her workload was the same, “stacking” had not been introduced and then to be subjected to abuse at the hospital were all events triggering her illness. “Stacking” may or may not have been the major one, but I am satisfied it was a material cause which is all that is necessary. In the end it was the allegation upon which Mr. Langstaff relied, albeit against the background of stress from overwork leading upto it.
12. It is now necessary to recite a little more detail of events leading upto 25th September 1996 in order to identify the real issue in this case and decide whether the Council was in breach of its duty to Miss Pratley.
13. I have already mentioned, as background, that at the material time the job of case manager at the Council’s Leatherhead office (I am not concerned with other offices) was a very pressurised one. The office was under-staffed and under-resourced. On the evidence, I find that the main source of stress to the case managers was lack of funding which prevented them putting together the care packages that they and their clients wanted. One of the obvious results of this was that elderly clients sometimes remained occupying a bed in a local hospital to the annoyance of consultants and staff who needed the space for other cases. That is the type of situation that could and did lead to the abuse referred to from other professionals who saw the case managers as responsible. Miss Pratley as a responsible and caring manager suffered from this.
14. I have already mentioned that Miss Pratley’s contractual hours of work were 36 per week. At paragraph 15 of her witness statement she says this:

“To the best of my recollection, I worked more than 36 hours per week from the commencement of my employment. At first I worked, on average, an additional two hours per night on two nights per week, with an occasional two to three hours on a Saturday. As I have described already, my case loading increased, so that by June 1995, I was working on average every weekday evening for an additional 3 - 4 hours and about 6 hours each Sunday. My case load continued to increase and by June/July 1996 I was working at least 4 hours every evening, sometimes more, about 6 hours on a Saturday, sometimes in the office and 6 hours on a Sunday at home.”

The first thing to notice about this paragraph is that the extraordinary hours worked were at home and not significantly at the office. It may be that Miss Pratley was her own worst enemy in the sense that her own high standards drove her to work these hours when others did not. At paragraph 17 of her witness statement Miss Pratley says that she told Mrs. Elrick at supervision meetings, that she was working more than an additional 4 hours per week. No further particulars are given nor is that confirmed by the surviving records of those meetings which were always given to Miss Pratley after the event for approval. She may well have said something to Mrs. Elrick but I am satisfied it gave no clue to what is alleged in paragraph 15. Miss Pratley accepts in her witness statement that she had been told by Mrs. Elrick at the commencement of her employment to inform her if she ever exceeded 4 hours per week overtime. Miss Pratley apparently kept a notebook in which she recorded her overtime for the purposes of the TOIL scheme. The only one I have seen covers the period of May to September 1996, this also records time taken off in lieu. It does not record anything like the overtime Miss Pratley asserts in paragraph 15. For example, 7 hours overtime are recorded for the whole of May, 5 hours for June, 5 hours for July and 8 in August. It is possible that Miss Pratley’s illness has caused her to persuade herself of the allegations in paragraph 15. The alternative, which I prefer, is that Miss Pratley was over-working in order to keep up and to maintain the standards she set herself but did not disclose this to Mrs. Elrick. Several witness statements were put in evidence which describe Miss Pratley in glowing terms. I do not doubt these references for a minute but they describe her as a “private person”, someone with “very high standards”, “a very professional person and would not allow any poor standards”, “incredibly hard working and very conscientious and very organised . . . . she was a perfectionist. She worried a lot about the clients because she was very concerned for their welfare. She saw it as her function to give them as much care as she could. She was not able to lower her standards in this respect, she was meticulous and she would work by the book and would want things done properly.” I neither saw nor heard anything in court to contradict those descriptions. However, since I find Mrs. Elrick to be an honest and very impressive witness indeed and since she clearly had no idea that Miss Pratley was working anything like the overtime alleged, I can only and do conclude that Miss Pratley deliberately kept the extent of her overtime from her.

15. On her own evidence it is clear that Miss Pratley regarded herself as robust and someone who could cope with working under pressure and did not want the Council through Mrs. Elrick to think that she was not upto the job or could not cope. This particularly manifested itself in March 1996 when she was away from work for two weeks. Her G.P.’s notes record “nausea, vertigo and severe headache”. His certificate for the Council simply recorded “neuralgia”. Miss Pratley’s witness statement records that her doctor suggested that the headaches were probably due to stress at work but that she asked him not to record that on the sick note and he agreed not to. Her statement records:

“I was concerned about what people might think if they thought I was suffering with stress, for fear the employers would say that I could not cope.”

In all it is reasonably clear, and I find, that Miss Pratley was concerned to hide from Mrs. Elrick the extent of overtime she found it necessary to put in and also that her “neuralgia” in March could be related to stress at work.

16. Miss Pratley records in her witness statement and repeated in evidence that on return to work she had told Mrs. Elrick that she was suffering from stress. Apparently this was a brief conversation on seeing Mrs. Elrick in a corridor. Mrs. Elrick did not recall this. When it was put to her in cross-examination that she had replied to Miss Pratley that “she was not surprised”, she accepted that if Miss Pratley had mentioned stress she may have made some such reply. However, she insisted, and I accept, that such an exchange, if it took place, was a light hearted one and not one calculated to alert Mrs. Elrick to a serious problem. Mrs. Elrick said that if any employee had told her that she was suffering from stress she would immediately have sought to identify the cause and take some action, for example, by discussing the employee’s case load and seeking to prioritise cases. I have no doubt that any such reference to stress by Miss Pratley was not one made either in context or manner which alerted Mrs. Elrick to a problem or would have alerted any reasonable employer. I find this because the idea that Miss Pratley would mention to Mrs. Elrick that she was suffering from stress in any serious manner on her return to work having just prevailed upon her doctor not to mention stress for the reasons given, is unacceptable. Further, I accept Mrs. Elrick’s rationalisation of the exchange, assuming it occurred at all.
17. Mrs. Elrick’s witness statement records, and this was not disputed, that she held regular supervision meetings with all members of staff every 4 to 6 weeks. In addition, there were team meetings held roughly once a fortnight. Mrs. Elrick’s practise was to make written notes of the supervision meetings and hand the notes to the member of staff in question. She would retain a copy in her file. Unfortunately the Council has been unable to locate these notes but Miss Pratley has disclosed some which she kept. Mrs. Elrick’s recollection is that prior to August 1996, Miss Pratley never said that she was suffering from stress or other health problems as a result of her work. The surviving notes confirm this. A surviving appraisal of Miss Pratley dated June 1996 does, however, refer to the volume of cases “becoming too great again”. There is a reference to Miss Pratley having no difficulties with supervision and that she finds it useful. It concludes:

“A good year’s work. Maureen has very high standards and always aspires to achieve them.”

The evidence concerning Miss Pratley’s precise case load is unclear. Having heard it all I find that it fluctuated and at times was unreasonably high. However, I do not find that overall it was so high or unreasonable as to constitute a risk to health in itself.

18. In summary I find that upto August 1996 Miss Pratley had a heavy burden of cases, that her job was stressful at times, and that she drove herself too hard. However, she deliberately kept from Mrs. Elrick that she could not cope without working unreasonable overtime and also hid the fact that her “neuralgia” in March, according to her doctor, was probably due to stress at work. In short, Mrs. Elrick knew that the workload was burdensome and at times stressful in a general sense, but there was nothing to alert her, or any reasonable employer, to a risk to Miss Pratley’s health. During this period Miss Pratley had never sought to avail herself of the occupational health service or counselling services that were available to the Council’s employees, nor had she been back to her own G.P. with any relevant complaint.
19. At paragraph 44 of her witness statement Mrs. Elrick said:

“If the Claimant had mentioned anything about stress I would certainly have enquired about her ability to continue, about what advice she was getting from her doctor (or to go and see her doctor if she had not already done so), and I would have reminded her of the counselling service. Depending on what she said I could also have referred her to Occupational Health. I would certainly not have allowed her to work if I thought doing so would have harmed her.”

Having formed the impression of Mrs. Elrick that I have mentioned, I have no hesitation in accepting that paragraph.

20. I now come to August 1996. Miss Pratley’s copy of Mrs. Elrick’s note of this meeting was disclosed and I shall refer to it shortly. Miss Pratley’s witness statement states that by the summer of 1996 she knew that she was stressed and that she took golf lessons to try to help. Just before the supervision meeting on 21st August the statement indicates that she learnt of a plan to transfer all clients over the age of 60 to the elderly care team whereas previously the qualifying age had been 65. This would have amounted to an extra 40 cases. Her statement records that she decided to tell Mrs. Elrick that this was wrong and that Mrs. Elrick agreed. She further states that she told Mrs. Elrick that she couldn’t cope and felt she was “going under”. Her statement continues:

“Although I discussed with Sue the concerns that I had about my health she simply laughed and said “you’re tough, you will cope. . . . . . I asked to please refer me to the Occupational Health Department. I said I would be ill and needed to see somebody from occupational health, and further would she reduce my workload? The position was made very clear to Sue Elrick. I told my employers in this meeting that I would contact the union if I where to become ill because I would have to protect myself. I could not cope especially because of the abuse that I was getting in relation to the bed - blocking situation. I requested at that time that my concerns were officially recorded, which they were. The interview notes were never typed up because there was not enough support staff to do it and indeed only one admin person between us all.

After the meeting on 21st August 1996 I was soon due for my annual leave. I was persuaded to postpone my request for a referral to Occupational Health temporarily when Sue agreed that they would “stack” cases.”

In her evidence Miss Pratley said that whereas she had not thought there was any danger from work in the spring, later in the summer she knew she was becoming stressed but thought that her holiday would sort her out. In the period from May to August she had not thought there was a real problem and had not been to her doctor but she realised she could not keep up the pace of work. She said she had agreed with Mrs. Elrick to postpone a reference to the Occupational Health Department until after her three week holiday and because of the reference to “stacking”. She did not think that she needed to see her own doctor at that time. She also mentioned for the first time in evidence, that she had obtained a print-out of her case load which had risen to 168 just before her holidays. Mr. Norman put to her in cross-examination (accurately) that this figure had never been mentioned before. That the highest previous reference to a figure was 150 in the Particulars of Claim but that 168 was not referred to in any more contemporaneous document despite the fact that she had union assistance and in due course went to solicitors. I do not know where Miss Pratley gets the figure of 168 from. I have no doubt she honestly believes it but it is not supported by any other evidence and I cannot accept it. The note of the supervision meeting records her case load at that time at 111. It also records 40 extra cases to be transferred to Miss Pratley and Sally Jagger, who was the other full time case manager in the office at the time, and appears to be tied in with the thought of reducing the qualifying age from 65 to 60. However, the note itself confirms in an addendum added immediately after the meeting (or possibly at a later stage during the meeting) “this is not the case - there are only two extra cases to be reallocated”; so that particular fear of Miss Pratley’s was corrected. I find that a case load of 111 was not unreasonable.

21. At paragraph 3 of the note of the meeting and immediately under the reference to 40 extra cases there is recorded “MP (Miss Pratley) feels she is “going under”.” A little later there appears:

“i. Need to slow down the incoming new work.

ii. Day to day work - i.e. dealing with crisis on cases is manageable.

SE (Mrs. Elrick) ® memo to Carol Foster to explain pressures and get senior managers to recognise the problems. Agreed to write to Carol to inform her of decision to stack new cases - because of pressure of incoming work. MP fears repercussion on her personal health as a result of pressures. Agreed this is recorded, should MP need to seek further advice - and for future protection of her personal situation. Date for next meeting 16th October 11.30 a.m. ”

At the foot of this document and added later by Miss Pratley is a note to the effect that Sue had apparently not discussed “stacking” with Sally and that cases had not been “stacked” but allocated.

22. Mrs. Elrick’s witness statement states that Miss Pratley did talk to her about her work load, that it was part of an ordinary supervision meeting and not a meeting arranged especially to discuss her problems. She states that the feared transfer of 40 extra cases seemed to be Miss Pratley’s primary concern. That she did not think that she could cope with that especially when she was just going on holiday and it was that aspect of the matter that provoked the discussion about Miss Pratley’s health and the reference in the note to it. Mrs. Elrick’s recollection, as recorded in her statement, is that Miss Pratley told her she was concerned that her health might suffer in the future but that she did not say that her health was already suffering or that she had seen her general practitioner. She had checked Miss Pratley’s case load and found it to be 111 as recorded in the note. Overall she did not have the impression that Miss Pratley was telling her that she was then seriously under stress or unwell. She agrees that it may well have been her suggestion that they should wait until Miss Pratley’s return from holiday to decide whether she wished to be referred the Occupational Health Officer. She is sure however that she did not “persuade” Miss Pratley to postpone her request. Overall Mrs. Elrick had had no previous indication that Miss Pratley was suffering from stress, there was no evidence at all of her work deteriorating, and her reason for not immediately writing to Carol Foster was that her overall feeling was that the situation could wait until after Miss Pratley’s holidays. Mrs. Elrick felt she was dealing with a very professional and calm person and Miss Pratley’s fear was for the future. She explained that she did not have the ultimate authority to implement “stacking”, hence the reference to Carol Foster. However, she very fairly agreed that it would not have been unreasonable for Miss Pratley to expect “stacking” to be implemented on her return. She had no idea that Miss Pratley would react as she did in the two days she was back at work after her three week holiday and before signing off sick. “Stacking” simply meant that incoming cases were stacked and not immediately allocated. The case managers would take the next one when ready. The problem with it was that it created a queue. Mrs. Elrick regarded it as only a short term palliative. I accept Mrs. Elrick’s evidence and her overall account of the 21st August meeting.
23. Mrs. Elrick was herself on holiday during the week beginning 23rd September, that is the Monday that Miss Pratley returned from her holiday. In the two and a half days that Miss Pratley was at work before leaving, there is no record that she contacted either the stress counselling or Occupational Health Department, as she could have done. Neither is there any record or evidence of her contacting Carol Foster or other more senior management. Miss Pratley herself described that it was a huge blow when she discovered that “stacking” had not been implemented. She felt cross and let down and did not know whether she could last out the week. She thought she would see her G.P. at the end of that week but then received the abuse from staff at the local hospital and went home at lunchtime on Wednesday 25th, saw her doctor and did not return. In a letter dated 25th September Miss Pratley wrote to Mrs. Elrick attaching a medical certificate and said:

“As I suggested, and as we discussed in my last supervision I think that it would be useful if I were referred to the medical department. My next G.P. appointment is on 9th October.”

On 30th September Mrs. Elrick wrote a letter to Mrs. Carol Burrows, the Occupational Health advisor, in which she stated:

“She (Miss Pratley) has, over a number of months discussed with me the fact that the volume of work in this team is very heavy. In a recent supervision meeting, she wished me to record the fact that she feared the repercussions on her own health as a result of work pressures. I would be grateful for any help you can give to Miss Pratley.”

That is in accordance with Mrs. Elrick’s evidence and such contemporary documentation as was before me. The reference to the recent supervision meeting was obviously to the meeting on 21st August to which I have referred.

24. In the recent case of Hatton v. Sutherland and Others [2002] EWCA Civ 76 Lady Justice Hale said this at paragraph 22:

“There are, therefore, no special control mechanisms applying to claims for psychiatric (or physical) injury or illness arising from the stress of doing the work which the employee is required to do. But these claims do require particular care in determination, because they give rise to some difficult issues of foreseeability and causation and, we would add, identifying a relevant breach of duty. As Simon Brown LJ. pithily put it is Garrett’s case: “Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless ascribe some at least of their problems to the strains and stresses of their work situation: be it simply over-working, tensions of difficult relationships, career prospects, worries, fears or feelings of discrimination or harassment, to take just some examples. Unless, however, there was a real risk of breakdown which the claimant’s employers ought reasonably to have foreseen and which they ought properly to have averted, there can be no liability.” (See (2001) All ER (D) 202 (Mar) at 63: my emphasis.)

25. At paragraph 32 Lady Justice Hale said this:

“It is essential, therefore, once the risk of harm to health from stresses in the workplace is foreseeable, to consider whether and in what respect the employer has broken that duty. There may be a temptation, having concluded that some harm was foreseeable and that harm of that kind has taken place, to go on to conclude the employer was in breach of his duty of care in failing to prevent that harm (and that that breach of duty caused the harm). But in every case it is necessary to consider what the employer not only could but should have done.”

26. At paragraph 43 Lady Justice Hale summarised numerous practical propositions. I have gratefully considered all those, some of which are of particular relevance in the present case:

“(2) The threshold question is whether this kind of harm to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable (para. 23): this has two components (a) an injury to health (as distinct from occupational stress) which (b) is attributable to stress at work (as distinct from other factors)

(3) Foreseeability depends upon what the employer knows (or ought reasonably to know) about the individual employee. Because of the nature of mental disorder, it is harder to foresee than physical injury, but may be easier to foresee in a known individual than in the population at large. An employer is usually entitled to assume that the employee can withstand the normal pressures of the job unless he knows of some particular problem or vulnerability.

(4) The test is the same whatever the employment: there are no occupations which should be regarded as intrinsically dangerous to mental health.

(6) The employer is generally entitled to take what he is told by his employee at face value, unless he had good reason to think to the contrary. He does not generally have to make searching enquiries of the employee or seek permission to make further enquiries of his medical advisors.

(7) 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.

(11) An employer who offers a confidential advice service, with referral to appropriate counselling or treatment services, is unlikely to be found in breach duty.

(12) If the only reasonable and effective step would have been to dismiss or demote the employee, the employer will not be in breach of duty in allowing a willing employee to continue in the job.

(13) In all cases, therefore, it is necessary to identify the steps which the employer both could and should have taken before finding him in breach of his duty of care.”

27. Mr. Langstaff made much of Mrs. Elrick’s honest answers to him in cross-examination, that she was aware that pressure and stress at work could lead to injury to health and that she was prepared to accept that could have happened here. But as Hatton’s case made plain that is not sufficient to establish liability. There is a crucial difference between general knowledge that stress can (but usually does not) cause illness and knowledge that a real risk has arisen in a particular case. I refer to point 7 above in paragraph 43 of Hale LJ’s judgment.
28. I have found here that Mrs. Elrick (and the Council) had no reason before the August supervision meeting to anticipate injury to Miss Pratley’s health. That is not surprising since Miss Pratley was herself clearly concerned that the Council should not become aware she was stressed, let alone suffering any work related health problems. Had Mrs. Elrick been aware of any such impending problem, I have no doubt she would have acted as she said. Miss Pratley did mention a health concern at the August meeting, but I readily accept Mrs. Elrick’s interpretation and recollection that it was a concern for the future, if the work load was not reorganised in some way. Miss Pratley had not seen fit at that time to go to her own G.P., the Occupational Health Department or the counselling services available. That evidences her own view of her health at the time and is some evidence of the impression she would have given to Mrs. Elrick. Her work was not suffering. To find that Mrs. Elrick should, in those circumstances, have realised that action had to be taken by the day Miss Pratley returned to work after a three week holiday, would be unreal. It was in my judgment, entirely reasonable for Mrs. Elrick to see how things were and how Miss Pratley felt on their joint return to work before taking specific action. The first indication of a concern for Miss Pratley’s health was at the 21st August meeting. Mrs. Elrick had no medical evidence at all. Simply Miss Pratley’s expressed fear for the future. Miss Pratley herself thought that her 3 weeks holidays would sort her out.
29. Mrs. Elrick was described in one of the witness statements as a caring individual. Having seen and heard her, I accept that description. I found her to be intelligent, impressive and frank. Had she found a continuing problem on her return, she would have dealt with it. To find she should have perceived a risk of Miss Pratley reacting as she did and breaking down almost immediately on her return, would be grossly unfair. The truth of the matter clearly is that Miss Pratley was unwell to a greater extent in August, than she herself realised. There was nothing at the time to alert Mrs. Elrick to that. I am very sympathetic to Miss Pratley, who has an excellent work record and who is herself a thoroughly decent and caring lady who has made a real contribution to society through her work. But for the reasons given I cannot hold the Council to have been in breach of duty and the claim must be dismissed.
- 0 - 0 - 0 -