Cerebos (Australia) Ltd v Koehler

[2003] WASCA 322

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Employer's liability
4. › Duty of care
5. › Psychiatric injury
6. › Foreseeability
7. › Whether reasonable employer could have foreseen risk of psychiatric injury from workplace stress
8. › Whether employer entitled to assume normal reaction in absence of warning signs
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Employer's liability
4. › Safe system of work
5. › Excessive workload
6. › Whether failure to reduce workload constituted breach of duty
7. › Whether workload complaints without health complaints sufficient to establish foreseeability
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Review of trial judge's findings
4. › Inferences from undisputed or established facts
5. › Whether appellate court entitled to draw different inferences

Quick Take

An employer is entitled to assume that an employee will have a normal reaction to workplace conditions unless there are external signs of distress, known psychiatric vulnerability, or specific complaints about health risks — as distinct from complaints about workload. Complaints about excessive workload may alert an employer to the need for remedial action to avert an industrial dispute, but without more, such complaints do not establish foreseeability of psychiatric injury. The question of foreseeability must be evaluated by reference to the circumstances of the particular employee.