Can I claim compensation for a mental health condition caused by work?

Two very different types of claim

Mental-health-at-work claims split into two categories that the law treats very differently.

The first is psychiatric injury following a physical accident — for example, post-traumatic stress disorder or acute anxiety after being trapped, injured or witnessing something horrific at work. These claims sit alongside the physical injury claim and use the same duty-of-care principles. The threshold is comparatively low: if the accident happened because of the employer's negligence and it has caused a diagnosable psychiatric condition, that condition is compensatable in the same way as the physical injuries. Our psychological injury after work accident page covers this route in detail.

The second is pure occupational stress — a psychiatric condition caused by the conditions of work itself, without a physical accident. These claims are harder. The legal test is stricter, the evidence burden is higher, and the courts have set clear limits on when an employer will be liable. Everything below is about that second category.

The Hatton framework

The starting point for any pure occupational stress claim is the Court of Appeal's decision in Hatton v Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76, which set out sixteen practical propositions that continue to govern this area. The most important, in summary, are:

• Ordinary occupational stress is part of working life, and employers are not liable for its normal consequences.
• Liability arises only where psychiatric injury to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable to the employer.
• Foreseeability generally requires the employer to know something specific about the individual — either that they had told the employer they were struggling, or that there were clear indications the employer could not sensibly ignore.
• Employers are entitled to take what an employee tells them at face value. If an employee returns from sickness saying they are fine, the employer is generally entitled to believe them.
• The employer is only liable if, once the risk was foreseeable, it failed to take reasonable steps to reduce it.
• General workplace pressure — heavy workloads, demanding deadlines, difficult managers — is not automatically enough. Something more specific to the employee is needed.

The practical effect is that the employer's knowledge of the individual matters enormously. A general complaint that "the team is under pressure" is rarely sufficient. A specific report that "I am not coping, I am off sick with stress, and I cannot come back to the same workload" is a very different thing — and it is at that point that the employer's duty to act crystallises.

What evidence is needed?

A pure stress claim without medical evidence is not going anywhere. The starting point is a formal psychiatric diagnosis: an adjustment disorder, a depressive episode, an anxiety disorder, PTSD in stress-only cases, or another recognised psychiatric condition. "Feeling low" or "burnt out" is not enough by itself, however genuine the experience. Our psychological injury after a work accident guide explains the diagnostic side in more detail.

Around that medical evidence, the typical supporting record is:

• GP records showing when the claimant first sought help for stress-related symptoms, and the pattern of consultations, medication and referrals.
• Occupational health reports, if any were commissioned by the employer.
• Sickness absence records, including the return-to-work interviews and any documented adjustments (or lack of them).
• Contemporaneous communications — emails to line managers or HR raising workload, hours, harassment, unresolved conflict, or a specific inability to cope. These are often the pivotal documents because they establish exactly what the employer was told and when.
• Grievances or formal complaints and the employer's response to them.
• Witness evidence from colleagues who observed the conditions or the claimant's decline.

The single most important piece of the picture is usually the one that establishes foreseeability. Without a document or witness confirming that the employer knew this particular claimant was at risk, a Hatton claim struggles.

How are damages valued?

Damages for pure psychiatric injury are set out in the Judicial College Guidelines. The current bracket structure, in broad terms, is:

• Less severe psychiatric damage: from a few thousand pounds up to around £7,000.
• Moderate psychiatric damage: roughly £7,000 to £23,000.
• Moderately severe: roughly £23,000 to £66,000.
• Severe: £66,000 upwards, potentially into six figures for the most disabling cases.

The band into which any particular claim falls depends on the severity and duration of the condition, prognosis, the effect on relationships and daily life, ability to work again, and response to treatment. Our compensation amounts page sets the framework in context.

On top of the general damages, financial losses — lost earnings, private treatment, pension losses if the condition has cut short a career — are recoverable in the ordinary way.

Time limits

The standard three-year time limit for personal injury applies, running from the "date of knowledge": the date on which the claimant first knew that they had a significant psychiatric condition, that it was caused by work, and that the employer might be responsible. In stress cases this is often taken to be around the time of a formal diagnosis or a breakdown, but the point can be argued in individual cases. The safer course is always to take advice as early as possible. Our guide to time limits covers the wider rules.

Should you claim?

Occupational stress claims are winnable but hard, and they are almost always more emotionally taxing than physical injury claims because the litigation itself revisits the source of the trauma. The right question is not just whether the claim can be brought but whether pursuing it is genuinely in the claimant's interests, given the state of their health and their support network.

That is a judgement to make with a specialist solicitor, not on your own. The threshold for a claim is real; so is the harm caused by workplaces that ignore obvious warning signs. Where the two meet, the law does provide a remedy — but it demands specific evidence and specific advice.