http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/ ... depression
Council loses mental health claim against former chief executive
£1.6m bill for taxpayers after high court rules Christine Laird did not lie about history of depression
Steven Morris
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 June 2009 15.40 BST
Local taxpayers were left with a bill of £1.6m today when a council lost a groundbreaking court battle against a former chief executive whom it accused of lying about her medical background.
Cheltenham borough council claimed Christine Laird fraudulently or negligently withheld details of a history of depressive illness when she became its managing director.
But in the high court in London at the end of a long and bitter fight, Mr Justice Hamblen dismissed the council's action. The council was ordered to pay its own costs and most of Laird's.
The case has been closely watched by mental health campaigners, who say it highlights the sort of difficulties people with depressive illnesses face when they apply for jobs.
Laird, 52, of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, took up the post in February 2002, at which time the council was controlled by the Conservatives. One of her main jobs was to lead a major restructuring.
Three months later there were elections and the Liberal Democrats took over. They were less enthusiastic about the restructuring.
According to the judgment "an atmosphere of mutual distrust" developed between Laird and Andrew McKinlay, the new leader of the cabinet. Over the next three years Laird claims she was harassed and bullied at work. She even blamed the council for the death of her cat, which she alleged in court had been poisoned.
Laird claims her treatment caused her to have a breakdown and she left in 2005. She spent three months in a psychiatric hospital and is now permanently disabled.
But the council claimed that Laird's appointment had cost it almost £1m – even before it incurred costs yesterday – including pension payments, covering for her when she was off sick and previous legal bills.
At the centre of the case was a medical questionnaire Laird filled in when she applied for the job. To the question: "Do you normally enjoy good health?" she replied "Yes". To: "Do you have a mental impairment?" she replied "No".
The court was told Laird suffered "three episodes of depression with associated anxiety" between 1997 and 2001. But she saw it as "stress-related illness and not depression" linked to "non-specific, non-recurrent events".
Hamblen found the representations she made were not false nor, "given the terms of the questions asked, were they misleading."
He ruled that McKinlay "spoke to her forcefully" and "on occasion he overstepped the mark". But he did not find there was any "campaign of bullying or harassment".
As costs were being discussed, Laird had to be led from the court, apparently having a panic attack. A first-aider was sent for to give her oxygen. She will have to pay 35% of her own costs – an estimated £190,000.
Outside court Laird's husband, Hugh, said: "Christine's mental health has been cruelly broken. The personal cost of all this is not financial – the price was so nearly her life."
The new chief executive of the council, Andrew North, estimated that, in all, the Laird saga had cost the local authority £1.6m. He said he was "shocked and disappointed" at the result.
Charities fear the case could make it more difficult for people who have suffered depressive illnesses to get a job, because Cheltenham and many other organisations have looked again at their procedures and tightened up disclosure forms in light of the case.
Mental health charity Rethink said that in theory past medical problems should not lead to discrimination. But Paul Corry, Rethink's director of public affairs, said: "In practice people tell us that being up-front about their medical history has made it almost impossible to find a job."
