High Court considers the impact of procedural deficiencies in a disciplinary process on an employee’s mental health

In Woodhead v WTTV Limited [2025] EWHC 1128 (KB) the High Court has provided guidance on the handling of private information disclosed as part of a complaint about a colleague, and on how the mishandling of a disciplinary process can amount to a breach of an employer’s duty of care to an employee.

Background

A female freelancer (Q) engaged by a TV production company (WTTV) made a complaint of sexual harassment about the company’s managing director (W) under its Respect in the Workplace Policy. She reported five incidents in which he was alleged to have talked with her about, among other things, his alcoholism and mental health issues. The complaint was that W’s discussion of details of his private life with her was unwelcome and had made her feel uncomfortable. References to the #MeToo movement were made in the complaint.

W was informed of the substance of the complaint in a meeting on 28 November 2019, which he was invited to with no advance notice of its purpose. He was also not given a copy of the complaint, in advance or in the meeting, but was required to respond to the allegations put to him on the spot. W denied that some of these comments were made, but he accepted that others had been made in the context of what he considered to be private conversations in his friendship with a fellow addict.

Disciplinary proceedings followed, continuing throughout and beyond W’s notice period (WTTV having already served notice to terminate his employment on the grounds of redundancy prior to the allegations being made). W had a history of mental health issues and became increasingly unwell during this process.

W then later brought claims against his employer in the High Court, alleging misuse of private information, negligence (i.e. that the employer failed in its duty of care not to expose him to an unreasonable risk of foreseeable psychiatric injury), and a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in his employment contract. The court considered that the breach of contract claim was duplicative of the negligence claim and did not go on to consider it.

Misuse of private information

W’s claim alleged that Q’s disclosure of private information about him to his employer was a breach of his privacy, and that WTTV was vicariously liable. He also claimed that the disclosure of this private information to WTTV resulted in it being subject to an obligation owed to him to maintain the privacy of that information, which it breached when relying on the information for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings.

There was no dispute that the information in question was private. The court also accepted that W had a reasonable expectation that the information would remain private when it was disclosed to Q in the context of their friendship. The disclosure of the information to WTTV was therefore a disclosure of his private information. However, the court held that disclosure was justified for the purposes of making a complaint under the Respect in the Workplace Policy, notwithstanding the fact that Q was a freelancer and not an employee or worker of WTTV, and that the comments were not made during meetings at WTTV’s premises.

The court also found that WTTV’s use of the information to investigate the complaint made was a justified use, and generally consistent with its policy (even though the way the process was conducted was deficient in certain aspects, as discussed below).

The misuse of private information claim therefore failed.

Negligence

Given W’s history of mental health issues, which WTTV were aware of shortly after the commencement of the disciplinary process, the court found that it was reasonably foreseeable that he would be at risk of psychiatric injury attributable to stress at work. From the point of their knowledge, WTTV were therefore under a duty to take reasonable care to prevent or reduce the harm, taking into account the level of risk, the gravity of harm which might occur, the cost and practicality of steps to prevent the harm, and any justifications for running a risk.

Thereafter, the court considered that WTTV breached its duty of care to W in several aspects of how the disciplinary process was conducted, including by:

• Discontinuing several of the original allegations against W during the disciplinary investigation without informing him of this;
• Putting pressure on W to confirm how he would provide further responses to the allegations within a time period of 7 days, after he had been admitted to hospital and while he remained on sick leave; and
• Attempting to require W to undergo an Occupational Health assessment when WTTV already had sufficient medical evidence from the practitioners treating W, and an Occupational Health assessment would have provided no further information – an approach which the court labelled as “form over function”, albeit it did not find that this caused or contributed to W’s injury given that the emails were exchanged between solicitors and W did not see them at the time.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates that where private information is disclosed during the course of an internal complaint – for example under a Respect in the Workplace, Harassment or Grievance Policy – this information can then legitimately be used by an employer for the purposes of investigating that complaint without giving rise to a claim of misuse of private information.

It also serves as a reminder of the risks to vulnerable employees’ health during disciplinary procedures, which employers are expected to manage appropriately. Serious allegations must of course be investigated, and appropriate action taken, but when employers become aware of mental health issues during such a process, they should ensure that they are handled sensitively and that employees are given the support and information they need to be able to navigate the process without undue stress and potential harm to their health. It especially highlights that referrals to Occupational Health should only be insisted upon where this would add benefit.

Bates Wells can provide support during sensitive investigations, including on how to protect and use confidential information gathered as part of the process, and how to balance making adjustments for employees with health issues whilst carrying out a robust investigation. Please contact our Employment team if you would like further advice on these issues.

The material in this article is provided for guidance and general information only and is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice upon which you should rely. In particular, the information should not be used as a substitute for a full and proper consultation with a suitably qualified professional. Please do contact the Bates Wells team if you require further information.