Ackers v Cairns Regional Council

Case [2021] QSC 342

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ackers v Cairns Regional Council [2021] QSC 342

PARTIES:

PAUL ANDREW ACKERS

(plaintiff)

v

CAIRNS REGIONAL COUNCIL

ABN 24 310 025 910

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 636 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

15 December 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATES:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 February 2021; 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 July 2021

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

1.    Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,099,132.69.

2.     I will hear the parties as to costs, in the event they are not earlier agreed, at 9.15 am on 2 February 2022 (parties having leave to appear by telephone or videolink).

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE: EXISTENCE – FACTORS DETERMINING EXISTENCE OF DUTY – REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as supervisor of its payroll unit –  where the plaintiff had a pre-existing persistent depressive disorder – where the payroll unit was left inadequately staffed for some months – where the plaintiff was required to take on the duties of staff who were on sick leave – where the plaintiff worked excessive hours to keep the payroll unit afloat – where  the plaintiff  began to show signs in the workplace of psychological distress – where the Council investigated a Union complaint against the plaintiff – where the plaintiff exhibited further signs of psychological distress in the workplace – where in response to errors made by the payroll unit, Council imposed a Performance Improvement Action Plan upon the plaintiff  – whether it was reasonably foreseeable to the Council that the plaintiff may suffer a psychiatric injury

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as supervisor of its payroll unit –  where the plaintiff had a pre-existing persistent depressive disorder – where the payroll unit was left inadequately staffed for some months – where the plaintiff was required to take on the duties of staff who were on sick leave – where the plaintiff worked excessive hours to keep the payroll unit afloat – where the Council investigated a Union complaint against the plaintiff – where the Council had corporate knowledge of the plaintiff having shown signs of psychological distress in the workplace – where in response to errors made by the payroll unit, Council imposed a Performance Improvement Action Plan upon the plaintiff  – whether the Council breached its duty to take all reasonable steps to avoid unnecessarily exposing the plaintiff to a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE AND CAUSATION – CAUSATION – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as supervisor of its payroll unit –  where the plaintiff had a pre-existing persistent depressive disorder – where the payroll unit was left inadequately staffed for some months – where the plaintiff was required to take on the duties…

Continue reading Ackers v Cairns Regional Council

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ackers v Cairns Regional Council [2021] QSC 342
Case
[2021] QSC 342
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ackers v Cairns Regional Council involved the plaintiff, employed as a payroll supervisor, who suffered a psychiatric injury due to excessive workload and the Council’s handling of his performance. The Court had to determine whether the Council breached its duty of care, and if so, whether this breach caused the plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff argued that the Council failed to address the inadequate staffing, his excessive workload, and his deteriorating mental health, all of which contributed to his psychiatric injury. The Council contended that it had no duty to protect the plaintiff from self-inflicted harm and that the plaintiff's injury was not reasonably foreseeable.

The Court examined the foreseeability of the plaintiff's injury, noting that the Council was aware of the plaintiff's psychological distress and the excessive workload. It held that the Council had a duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid exposing the plaintiff to a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury. The Court found that the Council breached this duty by failing to address the staffing issues and by imposing a Performance Improvement Action Plan that exacerbated the plaintiff’s stress. The Court further determined that the Council’s actions directly contributed to the plaintiff’s psychiatric injury.

Regarding damages, the Court awarded general damages for the plaintiff's pain and suffering, economic loss for lost earnings, and special damages for out-of-pocket expenses. The Court considered the plaintiff’s pre-existing mental health condition, the severity of the psychiatric injury, and the likelihood of future improvement. The total award was $1,099,132.69, reflecting the substantial impact of the Council's negligence on the plaintiff’s life. The Court scheduled a further hearing to address the issue of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,099,132.69.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs, in the event they are not earlier agreed, at 9.15 am on 2 February 2022 (parties having leave to appear by telephone or videolink).

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.