http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20q%20r%20s%20t/sutherland_v_hatton.htm WebThe principles as set out in Hatton -v- Sutherland and further emphasised in the Irish case of McGrath -v- Trintech Technologies are as follows. These are important principles that employers and employees should be aware of in these cases. ... The principles have been tested and reviewed in multiple Irish cases since and have been favoured by ...

Hatton v Sutherland; Barber v Somerset County Council - vLex

WebSep 5, 2004 · (Appeal from the 2002 Court of Appeal decision headed by Sutherland v Hatton) The outcome of the County Court cases was Employers 0: Employees 4. After the Court of Appeal set out its guidance the result was Employers 3: Employees 1. Barber appealed to the House of Lords, who restored the County Court’s decision in his favour … WebFeb 5, 2002 · Sutherland v Hatton; Somerset County Council v Barber; Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v Jones; Baker Refractories Ltd v Bishop [2002] EWCA … potterton myson kingfisher

Protection Afforded by the Common Law to Employees Against …

WebTaking the strain; foreseeability in occupational stress claims ‘Occupational stress cases, whether founded on cumulative stress or on a one-off act of unfairness, remain extremely difficult to win.’. This case provides important confirmation of the difficulties in establishing liability for injury arising from occupational stress. WebJul 22, 2012 · Hatton v Sutherland (2002) CA. The Court of Appeal heard four cases together and it set down 16 propositions which have become something of a checklist when looking to pursue or defend such claims. These are viewed as ‘setting the bar very high’ for workplace stress claims. Hatton ten years on. Incredibly, there was a setback almost ... WebApr 23, 2015 · In the first two parts of this series (part 1, part 2) we looked at how the Courts still regard the 2002 judgment in Hatton –v- Sutherland as the definitive statement on the law for liability ... potterton myson housewarmer