Habermann v Cook Shire Council - [2025] QSC 214

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Habermann v Cook Shire Council [2025] QSC 214

PARTIES:

ELLANNA STORM HABERMANN

(Plaintiff)

v
COOK SHIRE COUNCIL

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC 290 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATES:

7-10, 14-15 July 2025 (supplementary submission of Defendant received 16 July 2025)

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

1. Judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,359,037.64.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs, if costs are not agreed in the meantime, at 9.15am 12 September 2025, out of town parties having leave to appear by videolink.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – MENTAL OR NERVOUS SHOCK OR PSYCHIATRIC HARM – DAMAGE AND CAUSATION – where the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant Council – where an email was fabricated in the plaintiffs name during a third party’s dispute with the defendant – where the fabricated email portrayed the plaintiff as racist and engaged in a deceitful misuse of her position – where the fabricated email was tabled in parliament – where the plaintiff subsequently suffered a psychiatric injury, leaving her unable to perform her employment in any capacity – whether the tabling was a necessary cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE: EXISTENCE – FACTORS DETERMINING EXISTENCE OF DUTY – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant Council – where an email was fabricated in the plaintiff’s name during a third party’s dispute with the defendant – where the fabricated email portrayed the plaintiff as racist and engaged in a deceitful misuse of her position – where the fabricated email was tabled in parliament – where the plaintiff suffered psychiatric harm as a result of the public dissemination of the email – whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care – whether the imposition of a duty of care was precluded because the injury resulted from the conduct of third parties beyond the defendant’s control

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE: EXISTENCE – FACTORS DETERMINING EXISTENCE OF DUTY – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY – where the plaintiff was an employee of was an employee of the defendant Council – where an email was fabricated in the plaintiffs name during a third party’s dispute with the defendant – where the fabricated email portrayed the plaintiff as racist and engaged in a deceitful misuse of her position – where the fabricated email was tabled in parliament – where the plaintiff suffered psychiatric harm as a result of the public dissemination of the email – whether there was a foreseeable risk, prior to the tabling, that the plaintiff would suffer a psychiatric injury from the perpetuation of the fabricated email in the public domain – whether the defendant breached its duty of care.

Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 305B, s 306, s 306I, s 306J, s 306N
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld), s 129, s 130

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 Habermann v Cook Shire 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: [2025] QSC 214
Decision Date: 29 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Habermann v Cook Shire Council, the plaintiff, Mrs Habermann, an employee of the defendant Cook Shire Council, sought compensation for psychiatric harm she suffered as a result of a fabricated email being circulated publicly. The email, which was falsely attributed to Mrs Habermann, portrayed her as racist and engaged in deceit, and was tabled in parliament. Mrs Habermann was unable to continue her employment due to the psychiatric injury she suffered from the public dissemination of the email.

The court was required to determine whether the Council owed Mrs Habermann a duty of care to prevent the harm she suffered, whether the Council's actions or inactions constituted a breach of that duty, and whether the injury was reasonably foreseeable. The court also needed to consider whether the Council's liability, if any, was negated by the actions of third parties.

The court found that the Council did owe Mrs Habermann a duty of care, as it was reasonably foreseeable that she would suffer psychiatric harm from the public dissemination of the fabricated email. The court rejected the argument that the Council's liability was negated by the actions of third parties, as the Council had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm, even if it could not control the actions of third parties. The court held that the Council's failure to investigate the fabricated email and its contents, and its subsequent tabling in parliament, constituted a breach of its duty of care. The court also found that the psychiatric harm suffered by Mrs Habermann was a direct result of the Council's breach of duty.

The court awarded Mrs Habermann damages in the amount of $2,359,037.64. The court also ordered that the parties would be heard regarding costs, with an opportunity for out-of-town parties to appear by video link.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,359,037.64.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs, if costs are not agreed in the meantime, at 9.15am 12 September 2025, out of town parties having leave to appear by videolink.

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

It is contextually helpful at this point to explain the content of the fabricated email. It was created about three years later but its fabricator pretended it was written by Mrs Habermann at virtually the same time as the authentic email. It purported to be an email from Mrs Habermann to then CEO Stephen Wilton at his Council email address. Its subject title was endorsed ‘Meeting’. It was purportedly dated ‘Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:39:57+1000’. The ensuing content was:I am sorry for the delay.I was going to contact you but things got away from me. We had the meeting with Greg Whittaker. He’s looking to purchase the Webber Esplanade lease of Cayman Cruises Pty Ltd. Ms Roberson has made multiple requests to have outstanding rates and rent waived as a concession to genuine hardship or until it sells. We have made no formal response to these requests. This has not put her off and the request for consideration has to go before Council soon as she has contacted the Ombudsman’s office.After meeting with Greg Whittaker, I went through the various files you forwarded me and with what the ombudsman sent through I have sufficient information to make sure the decision is made in our favour. It was bad enough that we had to hand over the housing to the dirty bastards we don’t want them down there. I will undertake to write and place a request before the October meeting. No action has been taken with the adjacent lease at this time although I am trying to stop that progressing.I can assure you this report will be handled with discretion. I will ensure it is kept secure. Contact me if you have any questions. I hope this is an acceptable outcome.Kind regards (emphasis added)Mrs Habermann’s name, position and contact details then followed.The facts persuasively demonstrated the email was a fabrication I find this email was a fabrication. As much was clearly established, but regrettably not clearly explained or announced, when examination of Council’s email system confirmed the fabricated email had not existed within it. There was also a persuasive array of other facts demonstrating it was a fabrication. In summary, those facts were:(1) The only purported metadata ever provided for the fabricated email is for a document created in July 2016 in an author field named ‘Roberson family’. (2) The fabricated email’s content and that of an email trail supposedly connected to it have 10 discrepancies from a genuine Council email on their face. (3) The purported time of the fabricated email is a mere one second’s difference from the genuine email. It is unlikely the same sender could have engineered, let alone bothered to engineer, such extraordinary synchronicity. (4) The fabricated email commences with the same opening words as the genuine email. That is an implausible coincidence. The opening words of the genuine email have obviously been copied in an attempt to mimic Mrs Habermann’s style of expression. (5) The fabricated email’s substantive content smacks of contrivance. Note the conspiratorial closing assurance of secrecy, ensuring ‘it is kept secure’. The reference to ‘it’ could contextually only have been either the content of the email itself or the report to be made to Council for the decision. If it was the content of the email, the very use of email, instead of a simple conversation, would have been creating evidence of the secret. If it was the report to Council then it was no secret - the evidence shows Mrs Habermann gave Mrs Roberson a copy of the report which she gave to Council. Another contrived aspect of the content is its reference to having to ‘hand over’ housing. That is a contortion of the unsensational reality, explained in Mr Whittaker’s evidence, that Council had ceased some involvement in social housing whereas Gungarde had continued its involvement. (6) The fabricated email’s content is at odds with the objective evidence of how Mrs Habermann in fact behaved within Council on that very day regarding Mrs Roberson’s lease. For example, at 4.15 pm on 13 September 2013, only 25 minutes before the alleged sending of the fabricated email, Mrs Habermann sent an email to Anne Kelly and Kirstin Fletcher of Council’s rates and arrears section, cc’g CEO Stephen Wilton. Its message content, excluding salutations, was:Can you please put a halt on any further follow-up to rent and rates in arrears with reference to the Webber Esplanade Lease (Cayman Cruises). They have been asking repeatedly that their outstanding debt be put before Council for hardship consideration, and we (including myself) have been chasing them for those debts, without responding to their request for hardship. Right and left hand not talking to each other. So, given they have now taken this to the ombudsman (and it looks like we really should have gotten back to them before) I’ll put their request before Council next month, and then we’ll have a concrete decision as to how we go forward. I’ll keep you posted.[23]The content of that email demonstrates that Mrs Habermann’s solicitous attitude to Mrs Roberson’s problems with Council, as contained in the authentic email to Mrs Roberson, was mirrored by the attitude Mrs Habermann was exhibiting in internal Council correspondence about the matter at that very time. It is inconsistent with the sinister attitude the fabricated email depicts her as having at that time in her internal Council correspondence. (7) The fabricated email’s substantive content is inconsistent with evidence of Mrs Habermann’s demonstrated professionalism and empathy towards the Indigenous community in her work on behalf of Council and, for that matter, in her studies. As to the latter, Mrs Habermann’s thesis in achieving her Masters in Urban and Regional Planning in 2012 was on an inclusive strategy for Indigenous land use, planning and development for land returned to traditional owners on Cape York. (8) As soon as the fabricated email was provided to Mrs Habermann, she emphatically and convincingly denied writing it. She pointed out many of the above facts, explained the email would not be in Council’s system because it was a fabrication. Further, in an unlikely step to take if she had authored the email, she specifically requested Council to appoint an independent IT expert to examine Council’s email system so as to establish the truth. [23]Ex 21.Mrs Habermann put Mrs Roberson’s request to Council, but Council rejected it

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Habermann v Cook Shire Council [2025] QSC 214
PARTIES:	ELLANNA STORM HABERMANN (Plaintiff) v COOK SHIRE COUNCIL (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC 290 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	29 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATES:	7-10, 14-15 July 2025 (supplementary submission of Defendant received 16 July 2025)
JUDGE:	Henry J
ORDERS:	1. Judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,359,037.64. 2. I will hear the parties as to costs, if costs are not agreed in the meantime, at 9.15am 12 September 2025, out of town parties having leave to appear by videolink.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – MENTAL OR NERVOUS SHOCK OR PSYCHIATRIC HARM – DAMAGE AND CAUSATION – where the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant Council – where an email was fabricated in the plaintiffs name during a third party’s dispute with the defendant – where the fabricated email portrayed the plaintiff as racist and engaged in a deceitful misuse of her position – where the fabricated email was tabled in parliament – where the plaintiff subsequently suffered a psychiatric injury, leaving her unable to perform her employment in any capacity – whether the tabling was a necessary cause of the plaintiff’s injury. TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE: EXISTENCE – FACTORS DETERMINING EXISTENCE OF DUTY – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant Council – where an email was fabricated in the plaintiff’s name during a third party’s dispute with the defendant – where the fabricated email portrayed the plaintiff as racist and engaged in a deceitful misuse of her position – where the fabricated email was tabled in parliament – where the plaintiff suffered psychiatric harm as a result of the public dissemination of the email – whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care – whether the imposition of a duty of care was precluded because the injury resulted from the conduct of third parties beyond the defendant’s control TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE: EXISTENCE – FACTORS DETERMINING EXISTENCE OF DUTY – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY – where the plaintiff was an employee of was an employee of the defendant Council – where an email was fabricated in the plaintiffs name during a third party’s dispute with the defendant – where the fabricated email portrayed the plaintiff as racist and engaged in a deceitful misuse of her position – where the fabricated email was tabled in parliament – where the plaintiff suffered psychiatric harm as a result of the public dissemination of the email – whether there was a foreseeable risk, prior to the tabling, that the plaintiff would suffer a psychiatric injury from the perpetuation of the fabricated email in the public domain – whether the defendant breached its duty of care. Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 305B, s 306, s 306I, s 306J, s 306N Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld), s 129, s 130