Kozarov v State of Victoria

Kozarov v State of Victoria was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff, a solicitor, sought damages for psychiatric injuries sustained in the course of his employment. The plaintiff, working in a specialist unit prosecuting sexual offences against children, developed post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder as a result of the high volume of distressing cases he was required to handle. The primary legal issues revolved around the foreseeability of the plaintiff's injuries, whether the employer was on notice of the risk, the scope and content of the employer's duty of care, and whether there was a breach of that duty. The court also needed to determine the causation of the injuries and the appropriate quantum of damages for pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity.

The court found that the nature of the plaintiff's work and the distressing subject matter of the cases he handled created a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury. The court held that the employer was indeed on notice of this risk, as the plaintiff had previously expressed concerns about the potential for psychological harm. The employer's duty of care was held to include a responsibility to implement measures to mitigate the risk of such injuries, and the court found that the employer had breached this duty by failing to provide adequate support and resources. The court determined that the plaintiff's injuries were directly caused by his employment and awarded damages for pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the employer was liable for the plaintiff's psychiatric injuries and ordered the employer to pay damages. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that employers have a duty to protect employees from reasonably foreseeable risks of harm arising from their work. The court emphasised the importance of providing appropriate support and resources to employees in high-stress roles, particularly those involving the handling of distressing material. The final orders included a payment of damages to the plaintiff for his psychiatric injuries, pain and suffering, and loss of earning capacity.