Griffin v Brisbane City Council - [2024] QCA 157

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Griffin v Brisbane City Council [2024] QCA 157

PARTIES:

TRICIA MARIE GRIFFIN
(appellant)
v
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
ABN 72 002 765 795
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 63 of 2024
DC No 788 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – [2023] QDC 229 (Richards DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 9 August 2024
Date of Further Orders: 30 August 2024
Date of Publication of Reasons: 30 August 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 August 2024

JUDGES:

Bond, Flanagan and Boddice JJA

ORDERS:

Date of Orders: 9 August 2024

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   The Orders made on 8 December 2023 are set aside.

3.   The matter is remitted to Richards DCJ for further reasons, with a further hearing of the parties, in relation to:

(a) Findings of fact and law relevant to the foreseeability of a risk of injury pursuant to Section 305B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld);

(b) Findings of fact and law relevant to the content of the duty of care owed by the respondent to the appellant pursuant to Section 305B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld);

(c) Findings of fact and law relevant to the breach of duty pursuant to Section 305B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld);

(d) Findings of fact and law relevant to causation pursuant to Section 305D of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

4.   The parties provide further submissions on the question of a costs order to be made in this Court by 23 August 2024.

5.   Reasons to be published at a later date.

Date of Further Orders: 30 August 2024

1.   The appellant’s cost of the appeal be her costs in District Court proceeding BD 788/20.

2.   The respondent bear its own costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – WHERE FINDINGS CLEARLY WRONG – PARTICULAR CASES – where during the course of employment of the appellant by the respondent in a call centre, the appellant suffered psychiatric injury as a result of dealing with a particular serial caller – where the appellant sought damages for personal injuries and consequential loss arising from negligence and/or breach of contract by the respondent – where the respondent accepted it owed the appellant a duty to take reasonable precautions against psychiatric injury and where quantum was agreed – where the respondent disputed breach of duty and causation – where the trial judge erred in in failing to decide the issues of disputed liability within the applicable statutory legal framework – where the trial judge erred in dismissing the claim on the basis that the injury sustained was not reasonably foreseeable by the respondent

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 305B, s 305C, s 305D, s 305E

Bersee v State of Victoria (2022)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Griffin v Brisbane City Council 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QCA 157
Decision Date: 9 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Griffin v Brisbane City Council was brought before the court to address the appellant’s claims of psychiatric injury she suffered during her employment with the respondent. The appellant worked in a call centre managed by the respondent and claimed she sustained a psychiatric injury due to her exposure to a particularly difficult serial caller. The respondent admitted to owing a duty of care to the appellant but disputed the breach of that duty and causation. The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable by the respondent. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the claim based on the foreseeability of the injury and whether the trial judge correctly applied the statutory legal framework in making his findings.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in his dismissal of the claim. The trial judge failed to decide the issues of disputed liability within the applicable statutory legal framework, specifically the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The court held that the trial judge’s findings were clearly wrong and that the case should be remitted for further reasons, including findings on the foreseeability of the risk of injury, the content of the duty of care, the breach of that duty, and causation. The court also found that the trial judge’s dismissal on the basis that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable was incorrect, as the statutory framework required a more nuanced approach to the foreseeability of psychiatric injury in the workplace.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders made on 8 December 2023 were set aside. The matter was remitted to Richards DCJ for further reasons and a further hearing of the parties on the specified issues. The appellant’s costs of the appeal were to be her costs in District Court proceeding BD 788/20, and the respondent was to bear its own costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 9 August 2024

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The Orders made on 8 December 2023 are set aside.

3. The matter is remitted to Richards DCJ for further reasons, with a further hearing of the parties, in relation to:

(a) Findings of fact and law relevant to the foreseeability of a risk of injury pursuant to Section 305B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld);

(b) Findings of fact and law relevant to the content of the duty of care owed by the respondent to the appellant pursuant to Section 305B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld);

(c) Findings of fact and law relevant to the breach of duty pursuant to Section 305B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld);

(d) Findings of fact and law relevant to causation pursuant to Section 305D of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

4. The parties provide further submissions on the question of a costs order to be made in this Court by 23 August 2024.

5. Reasons to be published at a later date.

Date of Further Orders: 30 August 2024

1. The appellant’s cost of the appeal be her costs in District Court proceeding BD 788/20.

2. The respondent bear its own costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

These are my reasons for joining in the making of those orders and, costs submissions having now been received, for concluding that the appropriate costs orders are:(a)The appellant’s cost of the appeal be her costs in District Court proceeding BD 788/20.(b)The respondent bear its own costs of the appeal.Relevant background The respondent Council operated a call centre at which a large group of its workers dealt with enquiries, complaints and after-hours emergencies the subject of calls to the centre from members of the public. The largest group of call centre workers worked standard office hours. A smaller group worked an after-hours shift to 11.00 pm and a smaller group still worked a night shift from 11.00 pm to 5.30 am. The appellant worked in the call centre from 28 July 2008 to 6 March 2017. Her duties entailed answering and logging incoming telephone calls. She worked as part of the after-hours team, generally working weekend and night shifts. During a standard shift she would receive approximately 50-60 incoming calls. The calls were at times aggressive, inappropriate, disturbing and/or distressing. Some members of the community called more than others. Some were abusive and threatening. Others were regular and persistent. The respondent conducted some training with its call centre workers in the handling of abusive calls, including by training the workers to warn the caller that they could terminate the call if they did not stop the abuse. At trial the respondent admitted that the issue of serial callers was raised at numerous team and staff meetings during the relevant period. One example of how the issue was addressed was expressed in a memorandum dated 18 September 2015 sent to staff by Mr Hackett, the respondent’s Manager Customer Services, which –(a)described the management of verbally abusive calls received by the call centre workers as “a serious matter” and one on which the respondent had “zero tolerance”;(b)reminded staff that actual or perceived threats should be reported so that they could be investigated to determine whether they were of a minor or a major nature;(c)advised staff that of “some key points to remember when managing any type of incident” including:“ If the caller makes you feel uncomfortable, upset or distressed due to their language, an incident or near miss report must be lodged.· EAP is available if the call adversely affects you … .” The “EAP” which Mr Hackett had advised was available if a call adversely affected the worker was a reference to the respondent’s “Employee Assistance Program.” By that program the respondent made available to its workers free, confidential psychological counselling for help with, amongst other things, “anxiety, stress and depression”; “career”; “communication”; and “conflict”. Mr Hackett was called by the respondent to give evidence. His understanding of the EAP was that it was “an anonymous counselling service for employees who are distressed or upset”.

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.

CITATION:	Griffin v Brisbane City Council [2024] QCA 157
PARTIES:	TRICIA MARIE GRIFFIN (appellant) v BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL ABN 72 002 765 795 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 63 of 2024 DC No 788 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – [2023] QDC 229 (Richards DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Orders: 9 August 2024 Date of Further Orders: 30 August 2024 Date of Publication of Reasons: 30 August 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 August 2024
JUDGES:	Bond, Flanagan and Boddice JJA
ORDERS:	Date of Orders: 9 August 2024 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The Orders made on 8 December 2023 are set aside. 3. The matter is remitted to Richards DCJ for further reasons, with a further hearing of the parties, in relation to: (a) Findings of fact and law relevant to the foreseeability of a risk of injury pursuant to Section 305B of the *Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003* (Qld); (b) Findings of fact and law relevant to the content of the duty of care owed by the respondent to the appellant pursuant to Section 305B of the *Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003* (Qld); (c) Findings of fact and law relevant to the breach of duty pursuant to Section 305B of the *Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003* (Qld); (d) Findings of fact and law relevant to causation pursuant to Section 305D of the *Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003* (Qld). 4. The parties provide further submissions on the question of a costs order to be made in this Court by 23 August 2024. 5. Reasons to be published at a later date. Date of Further Orders: 30 August 2024 1. The appellant’s cost of the appeal be her costs in District Court proceeding BD 788/20. 2. The respondent bear its own costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – WHERE FINDINGS CLEARLY WRONG – PARTICULAR CASES – where during the course of employment of the appellant by the respondent in a call centre, the appellant suffered psychiatric injury as a result of dealing with a particular serial caller – where the appellant sought damages for personal injuries and consequential loss arising from negligence and/or breach of contract by the respondent – where the respondent accepted it owed the appellant a duty to take reasonable precautions against psychiatric injury and where quantum was agreed – where the respondent disputed breach of duty and causation – where the trial judge erred in in failing to decide the issues of disputed liability within the applicable statutory legal framework – where the trial judge erred in dismissing the claim on the basis that the injury sustained was not reasonably foreseeable by the respondent Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 305B, s 305C, s 305D, s 305E Bersee v State of Victoria (2022)…