Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University

Czatyrko (the applicant) brought proceedings against Edith Cowan University (the respondent) in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, alleging that the University had breached its duty of care to him by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent him from suffering a psychiatric injury. The applicant claimed that he had been subjected to bullying and harassment by a colleague, and that the University had failed to adequately address his complaints, leading to his psychiatric breakdown. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's claim, and he appealed to the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the University owed a duty of care to the applicant to protect him from psychiatric injury arising from bullying and harassment by a colleague, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the Court considered the scope of an employer's duty of care in relation to the psychological well-being of its employees, and the foreseeability of psychiatric injury in circumstances of workplace bullying. The Court also examined the adequacy of the steps taken by the University in response to the applicant's complaints.

In their joint judgment, Gleeson CJ and Hayne J held that an employer does owe a duty of care to its employees to take reasonable steps to prevent them from suffering psychiatric injury. However, their Honours found that the University had not breached this duty. The Court reasoned that while the University was aware of some friction between the applicant and his colleague, the evidence did not establish that the University knew, or ought to have known, that the applicant was at risk of suffering a psychiatric illness as a result of the conduct. The steps taken by the University, including mediation and internal investigations, were considered to be reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the lack of clear evidence of serious or persistent bullying that would foreseeably lead to psychiatric harm. The Court emphasised that an employer is not an insurer of an employee's mental health and is only required to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks.

The High Court dismissed the appeal.