2xl

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] 2 All ER 385; [2004] UKHL 13

Country:

United Kingdom

By Oxbridge Law Team

Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team

Updated 2024-01-04 07:18:34 UTC

Plaintiff was a teacher with many roles in the school. He complained to the school of stress as did his doctor. School, Defendant, did nothing and Plaintiff suffered a nervous breakdown, depression etc.
HL ruled that Defendant had been negligent and hadn’t taken care of its employees given what they knew or ought to have known.
Once the school knew/ought to have known of Defendant’s stress, positive action was required by them.

Lord Walker

The overall test is still the conduct of the reasonable and prudent employer, taking positive thought for the safety of his workers in the light of what he knows or ought to know

About Oxbridge

Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.

We offer free case summaries, sample notes, and award-winning content, all curated and approved by our editorial team. Our reputation for excellence has led to features in The Guardian, Wikipedia, and the National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law).

Every year, millions of students utilize our free and premium notes to aid their studies.

Do you want a discount?

Enter your email for a discount code of 10%!

Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.

Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] 2 All ER 385; [2004] UKHL 13

Lord Walker

About Oxbridge

Similar cases

Do you want a discount?