Legal Research
Cases
Lloyd v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd

Lloyd v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd

Case [2021] VSCA 327 30 November 2021

Breach of Contract

Duty of Care

Negligence

Admissibility of Evidence

Compensatory Damages

Contract Law

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2021 0018

LINDA PATRICIA LLOYD	Applicant
v
HEALTHSCOPE OPERATIONS PTY LTD	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, OSBORN JJA and FORBES AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 November 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 November 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 327
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VCC 2032 (Judge P Ginnane)

---

NEGLIGENCE – Workplace injury – Psychiatric injury – Alleged bullying – Disciplinary proceedings – Whether trial judge erred in not being satisfied that bullying occurred – Whether employer on notice of work-related risk to plaintiff’s mental health – Whether employer breached duty of care in investigation and handling of complaints – Whether trial judge’s reasons adequate – Application for leave to appeal refused.

CONTRACT – Whether employer’s disciplinary procedure manual was incorporated into employee’s contract of employment – Whether parties objectively intended disciplinary procedure manual to form part of contract of employment – Whether parties objectively intended relevant parts of disciplinary procedure manual to have contractual effect – Whether damage claimed too remote – Whether trial judge’s reasons adequate – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr A D B Ingram QC with Mr G A Worth	Maurice Blackburn
For the Respondent	Mr P M O’Grady QC with Mr S E Gladman	Wisewould Mahony

BEACH JA
OSBORN JA
FORBES AJA:

Between 1982 and 2012, Linda Patricia Lloyd (‘the plaintiff’) was employed by Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd (‘the defendant’) as a receptionist and patient services provider at the Melbourne Clinic. The Melbourne Clinic is a private mental health service, which provides both inpatient and outpatient treatment in respect of people suffering from psychiatric conditions.

In the proceeding at first instance, the plaintiff claimed that, over a relatively short period of time during 2012, she was bullied by the defendant’s finance manager, Trent Stewart. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant owed her a duty of care in undertaking and managing investigations conducted on its behalf by Mr Stewart in response to a number of workplace related allegations made against her; which duty was breached by the defendant, causing the plaintiff to suffer psychiatric injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the psychiatric injuries she sustained were caused by a breach by the defendant of her contract of employment, which contract she claimed entitled her to the benefit of a number of policies implemented by the defendant, including policies as to how disciplinary matters involving employees would be investigated and determined by the defendant.

On 17 December 2020, following a trial conducted in the County Court over six days in February and March 2020, a judge of the County Court dismissed the plaintiff’s proceeding and gave judgment for the defendant, in accordance with reasons published on 16 December 2020.[1] In summary, the judge:

·was not satisfied that the plaintiff was bullied by Mr Stewart;[2]
·rejected the plaintiff’s claim of breach of duty (negligence) on the part of the defendant, concluding that the defendant did not owe…

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.

Continue reading Lloyd v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Lloyd v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd [2021] VSCA 327
Case: [2021] VSCA 327
Decision Date: 30 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lloyd v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, a former employee of Healthscope, sued for damages arising from an alleged workplace bullying incident. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff sought to appeal against the decision that found in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the employer failed to protect its employees from bullying and did not properly investigate the complaint. The defendant, a healthcare provider, denied any wrongdoing and argued that the plaintiff's psychiatric injury was not reasonably foreseeable.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the plaintiff had not established the occurrence of bullying and whether the employer breached its duty of care by not being on notice of the work-related risk to the plaintiff's mental health. Additionally, the court considered whether the employer's disciplinary procedure manual was incorporated into the plaintiff's contract of employment, and if the damages claimed by the plaintiff were too remote. The plaintiff also sought to challenge the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons for the decision.

The court found that the trial judge was not wrong in concluding that bullying did not occur and that the employer was not on notice of the risk to the plaintiff's mental health. The court also held that the employer did not breach its duty of care in investigating and handling the complaint. Furthermore, the court determined that the employer's disciplinary procedure manual was not incorporated into the plaintiff's contract of employment, and that the damages claimed were too remote. The court found the trial judge's reasons to be adequate. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders