Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia

Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia concerned a dispute between the Commonwealth of Australia and Mr Hyder, a former employee. The case came before the Full Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Commonwealth had breached its duty of care to Mr Hyder by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent him from suffering psychiatric injury arising from his employment. Specifically, the Court considered whether the Commonwealth ought to have foreseen the risk of psychiatric harm to Mr Hyder and, if so, whether its response to that risk was reasonable.

The Court found that the Commonwealth had breached its duty of care. It reasoned that the employer's duty extends to taking reasonable steps to protect employees from foreseeable psychiatric injury. The evidence established that the Commonwealth was aware of the stressful nature of Mr Hyder's work and the potential for him to suffer psychiatric harm. Despite this knowledge, the Commonwealth failed to implement adequate measures to mitigate the risks, such as providing appropriate support or adjusting his workload. The Court applied the principles established in *Wyong Shire Council v Shirt* and *Kriz v Vickers* regarding the foreseeability of risk and the reasonableness of the employer's response.

The Court therefore held the Commonwealth liable for the psychiatric injury suffered by Mr Hyder.