England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Wednesday, 16th October 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE: Miss Pratley seeks, on renewal, permission to appeal against the dismissal of her claim by Buckley J. She was a case manager for the elderly and was employed by the social services department of Surrey County Council at Leatherhead. She failed to return to work after 23rd September 1996, and complained that by reason of the defendant's breach of duty she suffered a serious psychiatric illness.
2. The judge held that she did suffer such an illness and that it had been caused, at least partly, by finding on her return from holiday that a scheme for reducing or at least containing her workload, known as "stacking", had not been implemented. She claimed that this was due to the council's negligence and in particular that of her immediate line manager, Mrs Elrick.
3. The judge held that there was no reason for Mrs Elrick or the County Council to be aware that Miss Pratley was likely to suffer psychiatric illness from the stress of her work until a meeting had occurred on 21st August. There is a note of that meeting, which Mr Langstaff has taken me through, and it does appear from that that Miss Pratley did require that her worries about her personal health should be recorded. The note also records that Mrs Elrick agreed to write to Carol (whom I assume is her superior) to inform her of the decision to stack new cases because of pressure of incoming work. Mrs Elrick did not in fact do that. She agreed in her evidence, according to Mr Langstaff and this is reflected in paragraph 22 of the judgment, that it would be reasonable for Miss Pratley to have expected stacking to be implemented on her return. The judge held, however, that 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 what he calls a three-week holiday, but Mr Langstaff says may well have been a four-week holiday, would be unreal.
4. Mr Langstaff submits that those two conclusions of the judge sit uneasily with one another. That there was, in effect, a promise that a system of reducing the workload would be in place by the time Miss Pratley returned from holiday, and that the council were in breach of their duty of care for not implementing that promise.
5. It does seem to me that there is at least a ground for argument before the full court in respect of that. Although as I indicated to Mr Langstaff I do not do this with much enthusiasm, I nevertheless think it right that he should have permission to appeal the decision of the judge on the grounds which are set out in his skeleton argument.
6. It will be necessary, I think, for a transcript of Mrs Elrick's evidence to be before the court for that purpose.

ORDER: Application for permission to appeal granted; time estimate a day to a day and a half; constitution of three judges, but may include a High Court judge; claimant's costs of today be assessed in accordance with the legal aid regulations.

(Order not part of approved judgment)