ANNETTS & ANOR -v- AUSTRALIAN STATIONS PTY LTD [2000] WASCA 357
| (2000) 23 WAR 35 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 357 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:89/2000 | 16 OCTOBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ PIDGEON J IPP J | 21/11/00 | |
| 43 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LESLIE ANNETTS SANDRA ANNETTS AUSTRALIAN STATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 009 613 727) |
Catchwords: | Torts Negligence Essentials of action for negligence Where nervous shock or mental disorder Whether psychiatric injury caused by telephone call informing parents that child of 16 years was missing from his place of employment or learning of child perishing in desert months after death Caution in expanding categories of negligence or classes of plaintiffs Policy considerations Distinction between grief and psychiatric harm Duty of care to avoid psychiatric injury involves analysis of interrelated elements of duty, breach, damage Foreseeability Normal standard of susceptibility Sudden shock Proximity relevant to psychiatric injury claims Causal proximity Aftermath Direct perception No appropriate reliance by plaintiffs on employer |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 Attia v British Gas plc [1988] 1 QB 304 Barnard v Santam Bpk (1999) 1 SA 202 Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [1999] 3 WLR 79 Beecham v Hughes (1988) 52 DLR (4th) 625 Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 Buljabasic v Ah Lam, unreported; C of A; SCt of NSW; No 40417196; 3 September 1997 Bunyan v Jordan (1937) 57 CLR 1 Campbelltown City Council v Mackay (1989) 15 NSWLR 501 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 Chester v Waverley Municipality (1939) 62 CLR 1 Chiaverini v Hockey [1993] A Tort Rep 62,254 Coates v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1995) 36 NSWLR 1 Davis v Scott (1998) 71 SASR 361 Devji v Burnaby District (1999) 180 DLR (4th) 205 Devji v District of Burnaby (1999) 180 DLR (4th) 205 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004 Dulieu v White [1901] 2 KB 669 FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Curtin (1997) A Tort Rep 64,479 Hambrook v Stokes [1925] 1 KB 141 Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549 Jaensch v Coffey (1985) 157 CLR 424 Knight v Pedersen & Ors [1999] NSWCA 333 Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [1996] 1 AC 211 McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] AC 410 Morgan v Tame [2000] A Tort Rep 63,870 Morgan v Tame [2000] Aust Torts Rep 63,870 Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383 Mt Isa Mines v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383 Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 3 WLR 414 Nader v Urban Transit Authority (NSW) (1985) 2 NSWLR 501 Overseas Tank Ship (UK) Ltd v Mort's Dock & Engineering Co Ltd ("The Wagon Mound" [No 1]) [1961] AC 388 Palmer v Tees Health… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 357
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Annetts brought an action against Australian Stations Pty Ltd after their son, who was a station hand employed by the company, went missing. Subsequently, they were informed that he had died. They sought damages for psychiatric harm caused by the company's negligence. The court was required to determine whether the company owed a duty of care to the parents to prevent psychiatric injury and whether such injury was reasonably foreseeable.
The court examined whether the parents' psychiatric harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the company's negligence. It considered whether the parents could have reasonably relied on the company to safeguard their son, and whether the harm was proximate enough to the company's actions. The court also assessed the distinction between grief and psychiatric harm, and the appropriate scope of the duty of care in such circumstances. It concluded that the harm was not within the scope of the duty owed by the employer to the parents.
Given these findings, the court dismissed the appeal. It held that the employer did not owe a duty of care to the parents to prevent the psychiatric harm they suffered, and that the harm was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the employer's negligence. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the lower court was affirmed.
The court examined whether the parents' psychiatric harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the company's negligence. It considered whether the parents could have reasonably relied on the company to safeguard their son, and whether the harm was proximate enough to the company's actions. The court also assessed the distinction between grief and psychiatric harm, and the appropriate scope of the duty of care in such circumstances. It concluded that the harm was not within the scope of the duty owed by the employer to the parents.
Given these findings, the court dismissed the appeal. It held that the employer did not owe a duty of care to the parents to prevent the psychiatric harm they suffered, and that the harm was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the employer's negligence. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the lower court was affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.