Risk allocation and psychiatric harm: Yapp v foreign and commonwealth office

In Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), an action was brought against the employer after the claimant was removed from his post as High Commissioner to Belize.1 The claimant had been suspended pending investigation of allegations of misconduct. Subsequently, a disciplinary process was initiated and he received a written warning as some of the allegations were found to have been established. His suspension was lifted though he did not return to Belize. The claimant had developed a depressive illness and he raised an action in both contract and tort complaining both of his withdrawal from the post of High Commissioner and of the way in which the disciplinary process was conducted and its outcome. He said that the resulting stress had caused his depressive illness, which both constituted damage in itself and led, on account of his inability to return to work, to pecuniary loss. In the High Court, Cranston J found that the withdrawal of the claimant from his post was both a breach of contract and a breach of the duty of care which the employer owed at common law.