New South Wales v Seedsman

[2000] NSWCA 119

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Negligence
2. › Employer's duty of care
3. › Safe system of work
4. › Psychiatric injury
5. › Foreseeability of psychiatric illness from prolonged occupational exposure to traumatic events
6. › Whether reasonably foreseeable that police work investigating child abuse could cause psychiatric illness
7. › Whether stress as mechanism leading to psychiatric disorder was foreseeable
1. Negligence
2. › Psychiatric injury
3. › Employer and employee
4. › Whether requirement of 'shock' as sudden sensory perception applies to claims based on breach of employer's duty of care
5. › Whether independent duty of care displaces nervous shock control mechanisms
1. Negligence
2. › Foreseeability
3. › Evidence of foreseeability
4. › Whether commonsense and analogous occupational experience sufficient
5. › Whether specific studies relating to police work required
1. Negligence
2. › Causation
3. › Multiple stressors
4. › Whether exposure to child abuse investigations materially contributed to psychiatric disorder despite other stressful events

Quick Take

An employer's duty to provide a safe system of work extends to protecting employees from reasonably foreseeable psychiatric injury caused by the nature of their work, and foreseeability of psychiatric disorder (as distinct from mere stress) can be established through commonsense and analogous occupational experience without requiring specific studies relating to the particular occupation. The requirement of 'shock' as a sudden sensory perception does not apply to claims based on breach of the employer's duty of care (per Mason P, with Spigelman CJ and Meagher JA not deciding this point). Australian law on employer liability for psychiatric injury does not follow the restrictive English approach in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.