Occupational stress claims: First breakdowns and Foxton-Duffy v Jockey Club Racecourses Ltd (2026)

Recent developments

Two recent decisions from the county courts which involved first breakdowns in overwork cases, Gabor Meggyes v Bentley Motors (2025) and Foxton-Duffy v Jockey Club Racecourses Ltd (2026), came to different conclusions and demonstrate just how fact sensitive stress claims are and how much they require rigorous investigation and careful assessment.

Gabor Meggyes v Bentley Motors Ltd (2025)

The claimant brought a claim against his employers (the defendant) making allegations that following a restructure, he had been required to undertake an excessive workload and that repeated complaints that his health was at risk made from July 2018 had gone unheeded. The claimant's key evidence included three emails:

• 12 July 2018 – the claimant stated that he could not feasibly manage
• 23 July 2019 – the claimant stated that the level of stress encountered was impacting physical health
• 19 March 2020 – the claimant stated "I am at the point where my personal life and my health is affected"

The judge found, in relation to the July 2019 e-mail, that while the claimant had some physical symptoms, he was not taking time off work, seeking medical help or complaining that he was unable to cope. In response to the March 2020 email, the judge found that the defendant had taken appropriate steps to direct the claimant to his GP and an occupational health professional and undertook a stress risk assessment. Importantly on the issue of foreseeability, the claimant's medical records revealed that he had multiple attendances at his GP but did not raise any issue about stress impacting his health, with workplace stress not being mentioned until 2020.

The judge concluded that there was no impending risk of harm until March 2020, at which point the defendant had taken appropriate action. The claimant's claim therefore failed.

Foxton-Duffy v Jockey Club Racecourses Ltd (2026)

In contrast to Meggyes, Foxton-Duffy illustrates that the risk of impending harm to health can arise when the weight of contemporaneous evidence favours a finding that the employer ought to have been alert to a developing problem.

Circumstances

Following a restructure in the marketing team in late 2020, four regions were reduced to two with staffing reduced from 21 to seven staff. The claimant was appointed head of marketing for one of these regions and alleged that both he and his colleague, who was appointed to head the other region, had put their line manager on notice of the risk of injury to those working in the marketing teams. There should also have been awareness of the risk to the claimant because others had commented to his line manager and senior leaders within the business of his frequent tearfulness and changed behaviours and complaints of excessive workload that he had made to his line manager during meetings in April and November 2021. The defendant's case was that that any complaints articulated related to the new marketing structure as opposed to excessive workload and that the claimant had an existing tendency to emotional outbursts.

The judge conducted a careful analysis of the witness evidence and contemporaneous documentation including the defendant's response to an equal pay grievance raised by the claimant's counterpart which noted:

• The claimant's region covered nine of the defendant's 10 financially significant race days
• Changes to the role profile presented a pure marketing role, which did not accurately reflect the duties undertaken
• The claimant had an additional 105 working days' worth of work

The response to the grievance stressed what a massive role the claimant's was compared to the complainant: an assertion which competed with the defendant's defence to the claimant's psychiatric injury claim. It was noticeable that despite staffing having been reduced from 21 to seven, the volume of work did not reduce in the manner planned and following the claimant's departure, the defendant reverted to a four region structure.

Impending harm

The claimant's case was that the defendant had been put on notice of the position at a meeting he had with his line manager on 21 April 2021 and this had subsequently been maintained by:

• The claimant crying in meetings
• His counterpart informing their line manager of the stress she was suffering and concerns for the health and safety of her team
• The claimant repeatedly complaining about stress levels throughout the Autumn of 2021
• A conversation with his line manager on 3 November 2021 when he stated "it is only a matter of time before I fallout with everyone"
• A meeting with his previous line manager on 8 November 2021 when he was visibly upset and showed a draft email setting out his situation

Contemporaneous evidence included a note prepared by the claimant's counterpart following the meeting on 21 April 2021 which said "I think it is possible to foresee someone in our marketing team becoming absent from work through stress related illness." Upon considering all the evidence, the judge found that the claimant's line manager knew or ought to have known:

• The excessive and unreasonable volume of the claimant's work
• The fact that the claimant had taken little or no leave
• The risk of injury through stress had been raised in respect of the team
• The claimant and his counterpart had repeatedly complained of overwork
• The counterpart had reported harmful effects of stress
• The claimant having noticeably changed demeanour over the summer months
• The claimant had made tearful complaints
• Of the outburst towards a co-worker leading to the claimant making the statement "it is just a question of time until I will fallout with everyone"

In the light of the above it was, the judge considered, obvious to a reasonable employer that they needed to take steps. In particular the judge had regard to the fact that employers should be more alert to picking up signs from an employee such as the claimant who has been overworked in an intellectually or emotionally demanding job and of whom unreasonable demands had been made.

Reasonable steps

The judge found that the following steps could have been taken and would have made a difference:

• Risk assessment
• Occupational health referral
• Ensuring that the claimant took annual leave
• Reducing workload

Causation

The judge found that while the claimant had some pre-existing vulnerabilities due to sexual and emotional abuse in childhood, the breaches of duty materially contributed to the claimant's complex post-traumatic stress disorder and moderate depressive episodes. However, the judge provided a 20% reduction on future losses to reflect the risk that such illness might have manifested itself in any event over the later years of the claimant's career.

Conclusions

In short, while Meggyes shows that claimants have a high hurdle to meet in order to prove impending risk of harm, Foxton-Duffy shows that the threshold can be met even where there have been no prior absences. With claims of this nature, careful scrutiny and assessment of the evidence is required in order for effective case strategies to be developed.

Claims Defensibility

The facts of Foxton-Duffy emphasise the importance of employers listening to their employees when they raise concerns and considering referring them to occupational health professionals and/or carrying out a stress risk assessment. Whilst liability for injury does not arise without notice of impending harm, there is merit in being able to show that developing situations have been assessed and active decisions made rather than feedback dismissed. It should also be remembered that it is not only what the employer knew that is important but also what they ought to have known.

The primary takeaway lesson from Foxton–Duffy is that whilst it is rare for 'first breakdown' and/or 'overwork' cases to succeed, every occupational stress claim is fact sensitive and care should be taken not to defend cases where the evidence, when viewed objectively, does not justify it, particularly where there is contemporary documentation supportive of the claimant's assertions.

To discuss the issues arising from this alert, please contact Will Potts (Partner) or Matthew Atwell (Legal Director) in our Disease Team.