Jackson v McDonald's Australia Limited and Anor

In *Jackson v McDonald's Australia Limited and Anor*, the Full Federal Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of a single judge of that court. The appellant, Mr Jackson, had brought proceedings against McDonald's Australia Limited and McDonald's Corporation, alleging that he had suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of his employment with McDonald's. The primary judge had dismissed Mr Jackson's claim.

The central legal issues before the Full Federal Court were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that McDonald's had not breached its duty of care to Mr Jackson, and whether the primary judge had erred in finding that any breach of duty by McDonald's was not causative of Mr Jackson's psychiatric injury. Specifically, the court had to determine whether McDonald's had taken reasonable steps to prevent the psychiatric injury allegedly suffered by Mr Jackson, and if not, whether such failure was a factual cause of his condition.

The Full Federal Court analysed the evidence concerning the alleged stressors at Mr Jackson's workplace and the steps taken by McDonald's to manage his employment and well-being. The court applied the principles of negligence, focusing on the employer's duty of care to provide a safe working environment. It considered the foreseeability of the psychiatric injury and the reasonableness of the employer's response to any identified risks. The court found that the primary judge's findings of fact were open to be made on the evidence and that no error of law had been demonstrated in the application of the relevant legal principles.

Consequently, the Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the primary judge.