Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployment law

Pakenham-Walsh v Connell Residential

by Personnel Today 18 Jul 2006
by Personnel Today 18 Jul 2006

Pakenham-Walsh v Connell Residential, Court of Appeal [2006] EWCA Civ 90

Background

Mrs Pakenham-Walsh worked as a sales manager. Following some family problems, she began to work increasingly long hours, often without holiday. Eventually Pakenham-Walsh left the company and brought a personal injury complaint, related to alleged stress from her working hours and working environment.

The judge accepted Pakenham-Walsh had suffered a psychiatric injury but found that she had worked extra hours by choice, and that the most likely reason for her injury was not stress at work nor the conduct of her managers. Relying on previous case law, the court also found her illness was not reasonably foreseeable by the company, as she had not complained about her hours or shown any obvious signs of problems. She appealed.

Appeal

Although the company’s lack of records in terms of employee appraisals and compliance with the Working Time Regulations (WTR) was referred to as “deplorable”, the court found these factors do not automatically establish a breach of duty of care by an employer. All the facts need to be considered in assessing whether the company was liable for psychiatric illness.

In this case, Pakenham-Walsh’s lack of complaint, lack of time off or any history of illness attributable to stress, coupled with the considerable personal problems which she faced and her wish to earn as much money as possible, led to circumstances falling far short of establishing that the company was liable for her injury.

On that basis, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision.

Comment

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

As this case demonstrates, an employee who voluntarily works excessive hours without complaint will encounter real difficulty in holding their employer liable for a stress-related injury. The court pointed out that the company’s conduct, particularly its lack of records and seeming disregard for the WTR, created a favourable background for such a complaint.

Had the company properly monitored Pakenham-Walsh’s excessive overtime hours and lack of leave, her court case might have been avoided.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Have your say in brand debate
next post
Our people are our biggest (secret) asset

You may also like

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

Lawyers warn over impact of Employment Rights Bill...

13 Jun 2025

Racism claims have tripled and ‘Equality Act is...

12 Jun 2025

School’s bid to appeal Kristie Higgs ruling refused...

11 Jun 2025

Court rejects Liberty’s legal challenge against EHRC consultation

9 Jun 2025

US Supreme Court lowers burden of proof for...

6 Jun 2025

Institute of Directors demand reforms to Employment Rights...

6 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+