Kozarov v Victoria

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning a claim for psychiatric injury brought by the appellant, Ms Kozarov, against her employer, the respondent, Victoria. Ms Kozarov, employed in the Specialist Sexual Offences Unit of the Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions, alleged she suffered chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder due to vicarious trauma from her work. She contended that Victoria failed to take reasonable measures in response to evident signs of her psychiatric injury, thereby causing its exacerbation and prolongation.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether Victoria breached its duty of care to Ms Kozarov by failing to provide a safe system of work, and if so, whether this breach caused the exacerbation and prolongation of her psychiatric injury. Specifically, the Court considered whether Victoria was on notice of the risk of psychiatric harm to Ms Kozarov by a certain date, and whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning a trial judge's finding that Ms Kozarov would have cooperated with measures to reduce her exposure to trauma. The Court also examined the content of an employer's duty of care in relation to psychiatric injury, referencing the principles established in *Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd*.

The High Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in rejecting the trial judge's "rotation finding," which concerned whether Ms Kozarov would have cooperated with steps to mitigate her exposure to trauma. While acknowledging material that suggested Ms Kozarov's commitment to her work, the Court determined that these factors were of relatively little weight when assessing the counterfactual scenario of her suffering serious psychiatric illness and receiving appropriate advice. The Court concluded that, on the whole of the evidence, the trial judge's finding on this point was preferable.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and ordering that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs. The respondent, Victoria, was ordered to pay the appellant's costs.