Stress at work looks set to become one of the most serious health issues of the 21st century.

It is likely to represent a potential growth area for both employment and personal injury lawyers, who report increasing numbers of clients coming forward with complaints.Nick Hine, an associate in the London office of Thomas Eggar Church Adams, attributes the increase -- at least in part -- to the number of 'high-value, publicised cases which have made people think a bit more about the whole issue of stress at work'.Simon Dewsbury, a partner at the Birmingham office of Thompsons and the solicitor for Randy Ingram, the travellers' site warden who received record damages of £203,000 last month for stress at work, agrees.'There are a lot of stress cases coming through and there is certainly a growth in interest after a big case,' says Mr Dewsbury.

'For instance, after the case of Beverley Lancaster [a housing worker awarded £67,000 last year] which was handled by a colleague of mine, we noticed quite an increase in the number of inquiries.'But despite success for the likes of Mr Ingram, stress-related claims remain difficult to prove and some practitioners may not think they provide much of an opening.

Martin Edwards, the head of employment law at Mace & Jones in Liverpool, argues that although there has been an increase in the number of claims, it has not been as dramatic as some people make out.

'As with most of these cases, publicity creates an increased awareness and that fuels a growth in claims, but it is a process that takes place over a number of years,' he says.Jane Mann, the head of the employment department at City firm Fox Williams, is even more cautious.

'Lots of people come to see me complaining of stress, but only a handful will be able to pursue claims.

Although I am moderately excited by the growth in claims, these are still difficult cases to pursue and only someone who has suffered serious illness can bring a claim.'This is a point taken up by Ian Walker, the president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, who doubts whether stress-related claims represent a growth area for practitioners at all.

He says: 'When the first stress case came out, we were deluged with peo ple who wanted to make claims, but the reality is that these are very difficult claims to win.

That's not because the law is difficult -- it is very straightforward -- but they are hard to prove on the medical and evidential side.

So although lots of clients are referred to us, not that many actually succeed.'Mr Walker does, however, concede that it is easier to bring claims now than it was five or six years ago, mainly because people know so much more about the dangers of stress.

Nevertheless, he says: 'It is still difficult.

You have to prove that the employer knew (or ought to have known) that he was driving you to a nervous breakdown.

That can be difficult to prove because different people can cope with different levels of stress.' He points out that there has to be a serious breach of duty by the employer if the worker is going to succeed with the claim.Mr Ingram is a case in point.

He had to retire from his job as a warden on a travellers' site in 1997, at the age of 39, because of ill-health caused by stress at work which included being shot at by site residents.

Although the case settled out of court, Mr Dewsbury argues that it still has significance for other claimants.He explains: 'There has been uncertainty since Walker [a social worker who received £175,000 compensation in 1996 after two nervous breakdowns] as to whether or not you needed a second breakdown to run a successful claim for occupational stress.

In the Lancaster case, she had been off work before she had a breakdown, but Mr Ingram had not had any stress-related absence from work before he finally went off and never came back.'The importance of this case is that it shows that "first-time" stress cases can be successful if you can show that the employer was negligent.

That means you do not have to wait for someone to break down and then break down again.

To that extent, the uncertainty from the Walker case is resolved,' Mr Dewsbury adds.Given the obvious complexity of proving these cases, it stands to reason that potential claimants should consult a specialist lawyer for advice.

But stress-related claims seem to cover two 'jurisdictions' -- those of the employment lawyer and the personal injury lawyer.

So which is the better option?Ms Mann is quite clear.

She says: 'This is work for a personal injury lawyer, and I would refer a client on to a specialist.

Having said that, however, it is still important for employment lawyers to have a good knowledge of the law relating to stress at work.

The reason is that where things have gone wrong at work, employees may be very stressed.

As employment lawyers, we have to be able to identify from clients which of them have a serious personal injury claim.

And, when settling claims, we need to be careful not to compromise our clients' rights by excluding personal injury claims in any agreement.'Mr Hine, on the other hand, argues that these cases belong in both spheres of law.

He explains: 'The underlying principles of law are personal injury, but they take place in an employment environment.

It is the employer's conduct in relation to the complaint that then fits into the PI structure.' That being so, he would consider taking a stress-related claim in his capacity as an employment lawyer.Likewise Mr Walker.

'As personal injury lawyers, we have all had to become employment lawyers because of the Disability Discrimination Act.

We can fight the PI claim but we also have to be aware now that someone may have lost their job and there might be a discrimination issue.

The breadth of approach is therefore much wider than it was in the past.'All this illustrates the need, says Mr Edwards, for a greater inter-relationship between personal injury lawyers and conventional employment lawyers.

'If you go back to the 1970s, a lot of people did both, but that has not tended to be the case in the last 20 years.

Perhaps PI lawyers and employment lawyers need to come together again.'But Mr Walker maintains that the key issue in this area of law is prevention.

He says: 'Stress at work is now treated very seriously by all responsible employers.

If you talk to the big employers, they all have programmes at work to address it before it becomes a problem.'This is the approach supported by Unison, the public service union which has brought a number of the high-profile cases -- such as Walker, Lancaster and Ingram.

Dave Prentis, the deputy general secretary of Unison, explains: 'Good employers have nothing to fear from cases like these.

They know that if they carry out risk assessments and take complaints about difficult work situations seriously, and give them proper back-up, these problems can be avoided.'Linda Sohawon, the head of the legal department at the white collar trade union MSF, agrees and emphasises the need for employers to take responsibility for this growing problem.

She confirms that the union's key aim is prevention.'We are trying to get employers to take responsibility for their employees' health, and to treat this as a serious health and safety issue,' she says.

'They should not put the onus on employees to try to resolve stress by sending them on time management courses.

How is someone supposed to manage a job when it is, in fact, not manageable?'But whatever the exhortations of the trade union movement, the increase in stress- related claims seem unlikely to be stemmed, at least in the short-term.

Mr Hine says the recent increases in compensation at tribunal may create an even greater impetus for people to make claims.

He explains: 'Although the compensation at tribunals does not directly relate to stress-related claims, it has made employees more aware that they have got the right to make a claim and that it is worth a lot more now than before.'That impetus may be accelerated when the Court of Appeal determines whether damages for personal injury victims should be increased to bring awards into line with inflation.

Mr Taylor, however, has his doubts.

He explains that these damages only represent a lump sum for the injury.

'People do not bring claims because they want to take their employer for every penny they can.

What people really want is a recognition that their employer was at fault and the assurance of a secure financial future.'