Overview
In a landmark ruling that serves as a stark wake-up call, the High Court has awarded nearly £1 million to a former marketing manager following a catastrophic mental health breakdown caused by workplace stress.
The case, Foxton-Duffy v Jockey Club Racecourses Ltd, highlights the severe legal and financial consequences of failing to act when employees show visible signs of psychological distress.
What happened
Matthew Foxton-Duffy, a high-performing regional marketing manager responsible for iconic tracks such as Aintree and Cheltenham, saw his workload escalate dramatically following an internal restructure. Despite intentions to centralise certain functions, the burden on regional teams remained high, and Mr. Foxton-Duffy was tasked with additional projects that his colleagues described as ‘entirely unrealistic.’
From April 2021 onwards, Mr. Foxton-Duffy and his colleagues repeatedly raised concerns about the unsustainable pressure.
Between April and November 2021, witnesses described Mr. Foxton-Duffy displaying warning signs:
- Visible distress: he was frequently tearful in front of colleagues and lost his composure during public meetings.
- Formal warnings: he and his counterpart managers raised written and oral concerns regarding unhealthy stress levels and excessive workloads.
- Direct disclosure: he explicitly informed his line manager that the pressure was affecting his health and strained his professional relationships.
- Untaken leave: he had over 20 days of untaken annual leave because he felt the workload made it impossible to take time off.
Mr Foxton-Duffy disclosed his health struggles to his manager in November 2021, who considered these to be behavioural issues, a combination of personality issues, a resistance to change and a negative attitude toward the restructure. His manager ultimately responded with a formal, ‘warning-style’ email.
The situation reached a tragic tipping point in November 2021 when, overwhelmed by despair, Mr Foxton-Duffy attempted to take his own life.
Ruling
The Deputy High Court Judge found there had been a failure to act by the Jockey Club, and it had breached its duty of care. Crucially, the court rejected the defence that the employer ‘did not know’ the extent of his suffering. The judge ruled that by November 2021, the risk of psychiatric harm was ‘reasonably foreseeable.’
The court criticised the organisation for failing to take ‘obvious’ and ‘easy to implement’ steps, including:
- Conducting a stress risk assessment: despite standard practice, no assessment was carried out.
- Occupational health referral: no referral was made, even as signs of distress became public.
- Workload management: There was no meaningful attempt to review resources or reduce tasks.
- Encouraging annual leave: Mr. Foxton-Duffy had over 20 days of untaken holiday, citing his workload as the reason he couldn’t take a break.
Mr. Foxton-Duffy was awarded approximately £990,000 which included general damages for psychiatric injury (Complex PTSD and depression), over £211,000 for past loss of earnings, and a significant £684,000 for future loss of earnings. Because the injury was deemed ‘indivisible’—meaning the employer’s negligence was a material cause of the entire breakdown—the Jockey Club was held liable for the full extent of the damages.
Learnings for employer
This case clarifies that employers cannot simply wait for an employee to ‘self-report’ a formal illness. If the signs of stress are visible to a ‘reasonable employer,’ the legal duty to intervene is triggered.
- Don’t ignore the ‘soldier’: High performers often ‘soldier on’ until they break. A lack of prior sick leave does not mean an employee is not at risk.
- Act on observations: If a manager or colleague reports that someone is tearful, irritable, or struggling, this must be documented and addressed immediately.
- Use your tools: risk assessments and occupational health referrals are not just administrative hurdles; they are vital preventative measures that protect both the employee’s health and the company’s liability.
- Monitor annual leave: a failure to take leave due to workload is a major red flag that requires management intervention.
As we move toward 2027 and the removal of compensatory caps under the Employment Rights Act 2025, this ruling serves as a timely reminder – the cost of ignoring workplace stress is no longer just a matter of morale—it is a significant balance-sheet risk.
