Majrowski v. Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34

Picture of hospital sign

Not actually from Guy's and St Thomas's ...

The seminal case (well, I would say that wouldn’t I) and said to be the start of claims for harassment in the workplace as an alternative to the ‘normal’ stress claim.

In practice, clear authority for the proposition that the ordinary principles of vicarious liability apply to tortious claims under the PHA and the source of some highly persuasive opinions about the nature of the conduct required to amount to harassment. Essential reading if contemplating a claim.

What is probably not commonly known is that after winning in the House of Lords, the claim was discontinued as it was evident the conduct being complained about was not sufficiently serious to amount to harassment under the PHA.

A small prize will go the first reader who can tell me how the Claimant’s surname is correctly pronounced.

Majrowski v. Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34



Filed under Cases, Harassment

3 responses to “Majrowski v. Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34

  1. RO Bennett

    I wonder if you have permission to use branded logo of St Guy’s and St Thomas’s Hospital NHS Trust for your article?

    If so, all well and good; if not, you may wish to remove it and substitute a simple text hyperlink instead, as use will be subject to copyright.

    • Nick Hanning

      I ummed and ahhed about that for ages! I consider you are right and better safe than sorry so, er, what logo?

  2. Pingback: Vicariously Liable for Murder? | Chop the Knot

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s