Is there a duty to take reasonable care in disciplinary proceedings?
Is there a duty to take reasonable care in disciplinary proceedings?
The High Court has upheld an employee's claim for psychiatric injury based on the manner in which his employer conducted a disciplinary process. Is there a duty to take reasonable care in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings?
Sexual harassment allegations
To ensure any dismissal is fair, you must follow a fair disciplinary procedure. However, aside from unfair dismissal laws, under the law of negligence you have a general duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from reasonably foreseeable physical or psychiatric harm or injury, and a High Court ruling has now held that this can extend to the manner in which you conduct disciplinary proceedings against them.
In Woodhead v WTTV Ltd and another 2025, Mr Woodhead (W) was called in to a lengthy "fact finding" meeting to discuss allegations of historic sexual harassment that had recently been made by a female ex-colleague. He was expected to respond to the allegations there and then, but he wasn't told the purpose of the meeting in advance and wasn't given a copy of the complaint. He was then suspended pending investigation. He suffered a relapse of a serious depressive illness and brought a negligence claim, alleging that WTTV's conduct of the disciplinary process was in breach of its duty of care and had caused him psychiatric injury.
Successful negligence claim
The High Court ruled in his favour, finding it was reasonably foreseeable that W was at risk of psychiatric injury from the disciplinary process because of his pre-existing mental illness which WTTV was made aware of at an early stage. The following aspects of the conduct of the disciplinary process were in breach of WTTV's duty of care: (1) not informing W that it had been decided some of the allegations would not be pursued; (2) attempting to continue the disciplinary process, in circumstances where there was no urgency, even though W was on sick leave and not fit to participate; and (3) insisting he undergo an "entirely pointless" occupational health assessment by video call when his own doctor had made clear that he wasn't fit to work and a video assessment would have been of limited benefit. The High Court also criticised WTTV for putting undue pressure on W to provide a rapid response to the allegations at the fact finding meeting instead of informing him of the complaint and then allowing him to respond at a later investigatory meeting; but as this meeting took place before WTTV was made aware of W's mental illness, the risk of psychiatric injury wasn't reasonably foreseeable at that stage.
Tip. There isn't always a psychiatric injury risk with a disciplinary process. In this case, W had a long-standing mental illness of which WTTV was made aware and the allegations were serious, and those factors made the risk reasonably foreseeable.
Trap. It does mean you need to take care when disciplining an employee with a known mental health issue. Consider your duty to take reasonable steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable psychiatric injury - balance your need to address serious allegations against your duty to the employee.
Best practice considerations
When faced with this situation, consider: (1) how you present the allegations and evidence to the employee and how you pursue the disciplinary process; and (2) delaying that process for a period where they are signed off sick.
You are under a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable psychiatric injury to employees at work and this can extend to the way that you conduct disciplinary proceedings involving serious allegations. Where an employee has a known mental health condition, you should therefore take extra care.