Expert Witness Journal Dec 24 - Journal - Page 8
Hybrid Bullying/Harassment and
Stress at Work Claim Dismissed
by Barbara Goddard and Rory Holmes
Barbara Goddard (DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd) and Rory Holmes (Crown Office Chambers)
act for the successful defendant in multi-million pound High Court action
On 2 May 2024 HHJ Mitchell, sitting as a High Court
judge, handed down judgment in the case of Skrzypiec & Pawlak v The University of Exeter, in which he dismissed claims for psychiatric injury brought by two
academics previously employed by the university.
university had allegedly failed to take sufficient steps
to avoid or alternatively reduce contact between
Professor Pawlak/Dr Skrzypiec and the lab manager.
Dr Skrzypiec alleged that work events had accelerated
the onset of her schizophrenia, and Professor Pawlak
alleged that work events had materially contributed
to causation of his psychiatric conditions. The claims
were presented on the basis of nil residual earning capacity, and initially pleaded at in excess of £10 million,
although reduced to circa £3 million by the point of
updated schedules of loss. The court heard evidence
from several senior academics and employees (both
current and former), in addition to consultant psychiatrists instructed by all parties.
Background
Professor Pawlak and Dr Skrzypiec, a married couple,
worked within the university’s medical school as part
of a neuroscience team researching formation of
memory and emotion in the brain. Their research involved use of mice, which was subject to licence under
the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and strict
regulation by the Home Office. Both academics
worked alongside a lab manager (‘the lab manager’),
whose responsibilities included health and safety and
animal husbandry.
The High Court decision
The allegations in relation to the allegedly negligent
disciplinary proceedings were abandoned during the
trial. The university had taken care to ensure that Professor Pawlak was subject to occupational health
("OH") input shortly before his disciplinary hearing,
to determine whether he was fit to participate. That
OH assessment concluded that he was indeed fit to
participate, a position which Professor Pawlak initially
agreed to before later seeking an adjournment of the
disciplinary hearing due to several matters including
alleged disability. Through their counsel, Professor
Pawlak/Dr Skrzypiec conceded before the second day
of trial that there was no foreseeable risk of injury arising from the mechanism of disciplinary proceedings,
which would of course be required following established line of authority (e.g. Yapp v Foreign and
Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA 1512).
From 2013 inter-personal problems developed in
the lab, which gave rise in 2015 to formal
grievances/counter grievances - first from the lab manager and then shortly thereafter from Professor
Pawlak. These grievances were investigated by the
university’s HR department, which found: (i) a case
to answer for Professor Pawlak, but; (ii) no case to answer for the lab manager. That disciplinary process
culminated in a hearing in March 2016, at which limited adverse findings were made against Professor
Pawlak. Recommendations were made for all lab
members to undergo further training, with a view
to restoring harmonious and constructive working
relations.
Although Professor Pawlak and Dr Skrzypiec had
some time off work during the currency of the disciplinary proceedings, both were able to return to work
shortly thereafter and continue their research. However, sometime later in November 2017, Dr Skrzypiec
was sadly diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and
subsequently took ill-health retirement. Professor
Pawlak continued to be employed by the university
for several years, but ultimately took ill-health retirement in 2022 given his diagnoses of chronic depression/bi-polar disorder.
Some of the allegations of harassment were not
capable of direct challenge by way of lay witness evidence, given that some of the key personnel were no
longer employed by the university. However, the university had generated significant paperwork while
managing the inter-personal problems, which meant
that the court was able to scrutinise the retrospective
accounts of Professor Pawlak/Dr Skrzypiec against the
contemporaneous documents. Having heard evidence from Professor Pawlak/Dr Skrzypiec over three
days, the court concluded that their recollection of
events was inaccurate. Consequentially, HHJ Mitchell
found that neither Professor Pawlak or Dr Skrzypiec
were bullied or harassed contrary to the Act, and that
limb of the claims failed.
The claims
The claims were brought on three grounds, namely:
(1) that Professor Pawlak/Dr Skrzypiec had been subject to alleged harassment from the lab manager contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
(‘the Act’); (2) that the disciplinary proceedings had
been pursued in an allegedly negligent fashion, and;
(3) that after their return to work in April 2016, the
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
The claims relating to the post-disciplinary period
engaged familiar Hatton principles. After they
6
DECEMBER 2024
