An employer's knowledge that an employee has been diagnosed with a stress-related condition (such as adult adjustment disorder) does not necessarily give rise to knowledge of susceptibility to psychiatric illness sufficient to impose a duty of care where none would otherwise exist. The distinction between foreseeable workplace stress and foreseeable recognised psychiatric illness remains critical: foreseeability of stress does not equate to foreseeability of psychiatric illness. 'Normal fortitude' is a relevant consideration but not an independent precondition of liability. Employer duties of fair dealing or natural justice in the employment context are distinct from the duty of care in negligence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.