Work related stress claims: what employers need to know

Zurich previously explored employers’ responsibilities regarding mental health at work in a 2024 article. This included looking at the idea of constructive knowledge – essentially, how much employers know or should reasonably know about an employee’s mental health condition. It also touched on whether rising cases of anxiety and depression mean that employers face mounting responsibilities.

Here’s the key takeaway: just because mental health issues are common in the workplace doesn’t mean employers are automatically liable. Responsibility depends on what an employer knew, or should reasonably have known, about a specific employee’s situation.

This distinction is still essential when it comes to work-related stress claims. Though awareness of workplace stress and regulatory focus on mental health have grown, the legal criteria for liability remain unchanged.

In this article, we’ll look at:

• How courts decide what’s foreseeable in work-related stress cases
• Key lessons from recent rulings
• What employers, insurers, and brokers should understand about the evolving claims landscape

Does workplace stress awareness equal liability?

Workplace stress is getting more attention these days.

Employees are more open about mental health, and employers are under pressure to show they care about wellbeing. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has also highlighted that work-related stress is a key focus in occupational health.

But knowing about stress, reporting it, and being held liable for it are not the same.

Just because more people are reporting stress doesn’t mean there will be more successful legal claims.

Many work stress claims don’t go far once they’re tested against legal requirements. Employers might see more complaints, requests for records, or claim notifications, but many cases don’t hold up. This is because claimants often can’t prove that the employer should have known the stress posed a real risk to their health.

In short, stress at work is common. But making a successful legal claim for it is tough because the legal bar is set high.

What is the legal test for work-related stress claims?

Courts still follow the same legal rules for work-related stress claims, set down in the case of Hatton v Sutherland. While the legal language can be tricky, the principles are straightforward:

• Employers are only responsible for stress-related injuries if it’s clear that an employee was at risk of harm because of work
• The law draws a clear distinction between feeling stressed and suffering a psychiatric injury
• Employers can generally assume employees can handle the normal pressures of their jobs, unless there’s obvious evidence otherwise
• Just because a job is demanding or high-pressure doesn’t mean it’s automatically bad for mental health under the law

Meggyes v Bentley Motors Ltd (2025), a case handled within Zurich’s portfolio, shows how courts apply these guidelines

The claimant, an engineer, blamed long-term workload stress, organisational changes, and lack of support for his poor mental health. Over several years, he complained repeatedly about having too much work, feeling undervalued, and being treated worse than his colleagues. Later, he provided medical evidence linking his work to anxiety, depression, and other health issues.

The court focused on several key factors when reaching its decision:

• It looked at what the employer knew at the time, not in hindsight. While it acknowledged the claimant was unhappy and under pressure, it didn’t see these as clear warnings of psychiatric injury
• Vague comments about stress, dissatisfaction, or minor physical symptoms (like headaches) weren’t enough to make the injury predictable or preventable
• When the claimant eventually reported health concerns clearly, the employer offered medical input and did a stress risk assessment. The court found these actions reasonable

In conclusion, the court ruled there was no breach of duty, and the claim was dismissed.

Are complaints about workload alone enough to establish employer liability?

Workload problems are common, but they don’t always mean there’s a risk of mental health issues.

Work can be tough at times; heavy workload, changes at work, or frustration are part of life for many employees. While these situations might need discussion or support from management, they don’t immediately mean that an employer should expect a risk of psychiatric injury.

Courts usually look for clear signs that work is affecting an employee’s wellbeing, such as:

• Repeated or unusual absences related to stress
• Medical records linking health problems directly to work
• Openly sharing concerns about mental health

Unless these signs are clear, employers aren’t required to assume workplace stress will cause illness. This approach is fair, recognising that while work can be stressful, there are limits to what employers can predict.

When can employers be held responsible for work-related stress?

On the other hand, some situations clearly show when an employer has responsibility. A case called Foxton Duffy v Jockey Club Racecourses Ltd (2026) illustrates this.

Here, the employee’s claims for stress-related injury succeeded because the employer ignored obvious warning signs

Over time, these signs included:

• The employee saying workload was affecting their health
• Colleagues raising concerns about team stress levels
• Clear changes in behaviour like tearfulness or struggling to handle meetings

By late 2021, it became obvious that the risk of harm should have been addressed.

Steps like workload reviews, stress assessments, or getting occupational health involved weren’t taken. Instead, the employer treated the complaints as performance issues and didn’t act meaningfully. This lack of response had severe consequences, as this mismanagement contributed directly to the employee’s psychiatric injury.

This decision does not represent a change in the legal framework. On the contrary, it reinforces the principles set out in Hatton v Sutherland. Where employees repeatedly raise concerns, and those concerns are ignored, the risk becomes foreseeable and the employer may be held liable.

Recent commentary following both Meggyes and Foxton Duffy has emphasised that occupational stress claims remain highly dependent on the circumstances of each case, with outcomes continuing to turn on foreseeability and the employer's response to clear warning signs rather than any expansion of the underlying legal principles.

How do regulations, equality laws, and stress claims fit together?

Mental health at work is increasingly important to regulators like the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), whose role is to oversee workplace standards and act when stress risks aren’t managed properly.

Civil cases for work stress operate differently. Here, courts focus on specific employees, asking:

• Did the employer see or expect the risk of injury?
• Did they take reasonable steps?
• Did their actions affect the injury?

Employers also need to comply with the Equality Act 2010. In some cases, mental health conditions count as disabilities, where they seriously affect daily life on a long-term basis.

If an employee raises a disability issue, the employer may have to make workplace adjustments. Employees can also bring discrimination claims if they are disadvantaged because of their condition.

It’s worth noting: Equality Act claims often focus on "injury to feelings" (emotional distress), rather than recognised psychiatric injuries. Compensation for injury to feelings usually falls outside standard Employers' Liability insurance policies.

In reality, most disputes involving workplace stress and disability are handled by Employment Tribunals, not civil courts. This aligns with the difference in legal frameworks for managing these claims.

What should employers, insurers and brokers do next?

Here are some key points to keep in mind:

• Not all workplace stress leads to legal responsibility
• Employers can usually trust what employees tell them unless there’s a clear reason not to
• Accurate records, including medical reports, absence data, and input from occupational health, are often crucial
• Taking reasonable steps after health-related concerns are highlighted is essential to defending against claims
• Obligations under the Equality Act and personal injury stress claims have different legal tests and insurance implications
• Every case is unique, so thorough analysis early on is critical

The bottom line on stress-related liabilityWorkplace stress is a serious matter for employers, employees, and regulators. Awareness is growing, and workplace wellbeing is likely to face more scrutiny.

That said, recent case law confirms that the rules around workplace stress claims haven’t changed. Employers are only liable where there’s a clear risk of harm to health that they failed to address reasonably.

For employers, insurers, and brokers, the message is straightforward: although workplace stress conversations have evolved, the legal principles remain consistent, sensible, and unchanged.

Author:

Dave Hall, Senior Claims Technician, Specialist Casualty Claims