The Civil Court ruled today that HSBC Bank could not be held responsible for post traumatic stress disorder suffered by a bank employee after he was involved in an attempted hold-up in 1999.
Victor Cassar had filed a writ in the First Hall of the Civil Court against HSBC Bank Malta. He said that he had been in the bank's security van taking cash to the HSBC branch in Cospicua on July 12 1999. The van was the subject of an attempted hold-up and was shot at by thieves. One of the thieves was shot dead by a policeman who was on site.
Mr Cassar told the court that he had suffered psychological trauma as a result of this incident and had been boarded out from work. He claimed that the bank was responsible for the damages he had sustained as it had failed to provide him with a safe system of work.
The court heard Mr Cassar's testimony of what had occurred on the day of the hold-up. Mr Cassar worked with the security division of the bank and distributed funds to the various branches.
On July 12 1999, Mr Cassar had to deliver Lm200,000 in cash, and together with three other bank employees had set off in the security van to the Cospicua HSBC branch. Because extensive refurbishment were being carried out at this branch, HSBC had housed the branch on a atemporary basis at the St George Band Club. When effecting a delivery to the original branch, the security van could park exactly in front of the bank's main door. However, according to Mr Cassar this was not possible in the case of the temporary branch and the van had to park some 70 metres away from the bank.
On the day in question Mr Cassar told the court that he was in the van when he heard a disturbance outside and noted that a hold up was taking place in the square.He immediately phoned police headquarters.
A hooded man fired a shot at the van's window but no one was injured due to the bullet proof glass.
Mr Cassar claimed that he has suffered psychological trauma as a result of this incident and had been forced to take early retirement from his work with the bank.
Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco in delivering judgement, said that an employer was duty bound to provide a safe working environment for his employees. In this case the incident had come about due to the criminal act performed by a third party. An employer was not expected to predict such criminal acts. Mr Cassar had been provided with a well equipped security van which had bullet proof glass and armour plating to its body work. This van had saved the lives of Mr Cassar and his fellow employees when they were shot at.
The bank had also provided all security equipment in its temporary branch in Cospicua.
The court added that HSBC had given specific instructions to its employees about what they had to do in the event of a hold-up. These included an order that the van's engine could not be switched off and that the van was to drive away from any such hold-up to the closest police station. However, in this case Mr Cassar, who was responsible to see that these instructions were followed, had not driven away and had not ordered the driver to drive off. Mr Cassar had therefore placed himself and his fellow employees in danger, said the court.
The court therefore concluded that HSBC Bank Malta plc was not responsible for the harm suffered by Mr Cassar. Due to the nature of the case the court did not apportion costs of the litigation.