Connor v Surrey County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 286

Facts

  • Ms. Connor, a head teacher employed by Surrey County Council, alleged she suffered stress-related illness due to conflicts with the school governors.
  • She claimed that the Council failed in its duty to intervene and manage the situation, leading to her psychiatric injury.
  • The initial trial found in favour of Ms. Connor.
  • On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the initial decision, ruling in favour of Surrey County Council.

Issues

  1. Whether the employer’s duty of care under common law and statutory obligations extended to preventing psychiatric harm arising from workplace stress.
  2. Whether the psychiatric harm alleged by Ms. Connor was reasonably foreseeable by the employer.
  3. Whether Surrey County Council breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent Ms. Connor’s injury.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the threshold for foreseeability of psychiatric harm must be sufficiently high; the employer is not an insurer of mental well-being.
  • The Court found that, although the situation was stressful, Surrey County Council could not have reasonably foreseen the specific psychiatric harm suffered.
  • The statutory duties of the Council regarding education and school governance did not automatically create a parallel common law duty of care towards employees regarding stress.
  • The Court determined that, even if a risk was foreseeable, only reasonably practicable steps were required to mitigate it, which had to be proportionate and feasible given the circumstances.
  • The initial finding in favour of Ms. Connor was overturned.

Legal Principles

  • Foreseeability of harm is essential in establishing an employer’s liability for stress-related mental injury; mere possibility is insufficient.
  • Statutory obligations do not automatically translate into a common law duty of care owed to protect individual employees from stress.
  • The employer’s conduct is to be judged by the standard of the reasonable employer in similar circumstances.
  • Employers are only required to take preventative measures that are reasonably practicable and proportionate to the identified risk.
  • The case reinforces that the duty to safeguard employee mental health is not absolute, focusing on reasonable foresight and practical preventative steps.

Conclusion

The decision in Connor v Surrey County Council clarified that employers are not strictly liable for psychiatric injury from workplace stress; liability arises only when such harm is reasonably foreseeable, and even then, the duty is to take steps that are reasonable and practicable in the circumstances. Statutory duties do not automatically equate to a common law duty of care for stress-related illness.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal