An employer does not owe a duty of care to an employee in respect of the timing and content of letters sent during a workplace investigation, even where the employee has suffered a prior assault and the letters aggravate existing psychiatric injury. The proposed duty concerning the employer's exercise of contractual rights to investigate and make decisions about the employment contract remains a novel category that is incoherent with the law of contract as modified by statute. The vulnerability of an employee under investigation for assault or serious misconduct is commonplace and does not distinguish Paige. Proof that an employer should have appreciated that an employee was annoyed, distressed, or fearful of a co-worker is not sufficient to establish reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric injury.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.