Griffin v Brisbane City Council

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.