Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered appeals by the children of Barry Gifford, who was killed in a horrific workplace accident. The children, Darren, Kelly, and Matthew Gifford, claimed they suffered psychiatric injury upon learning of their father's death. Their employer, Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd, was the defendant. The children had not witnessed the accident or its immediate aftermath, nor had they seen their father's body.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the employer owed a duty of care to the children of a deceased employee to protect them from psychiatric injury, and whether the existence of such a duty was negated by section 4(1)(b) of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944* (NSW). The Court also considered whether the statutory provisions under section 4 of the Act exclusively governed claims for nervous shock by family members, thereby precluding common law actions.

The High Court determined that section 4 of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944* (NSW) did not abolish the common law right of a family member to bring an action for nervous shock. However, it found that the employer did owe a duty of care to the children. The Court reasoned that an employer's duty to take reasonable care for the safety of an employee extends to protecting those persons whom the employer knows or ought to know are in a close and loving relationship with the employee from suffering psychiatric harm. Crucially, the Court held that it was not a prerequisite for such a duty that the claimant be present at the scene of the accident or witness the injury. This conclusion was informed by the principles established in *Tame v New South Wales*.

The High Court allowed the appeals, overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The Court found that the employer owed a duty of care to the children and that the common law action for nervous shock was not precluded by the relevant legislation.