O'Leary v Oolong Aboriginal Corporation Inc

This case concerned an appeal by the appellant, Mr O'Leary, against the Oolong Aboriginal Corporation Inc. The dispute arose from the appellant's claim that the respondent's conduct in the workplace caused him to suffer a recognised psychiatric illness. The appellant alleged that the respondent's actions created a foreseeable risk of psychological injury, and that the respondent breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to avoid this risk.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's conclusion that the risk of the appellant developing a psychiatric condition was foreseeable could be sustained. Specifically, the court considered whether it was necessary for the respondent to have foreseen the *particular* psychiatric disorder that ultimately manifested, or if it was sufficient that a class of injury, namely psychiatric injury, was reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the respondent's conduct.

The court reasoned that the employer owed a duty of care to the employee to avoid injury. Evidence accepted at trial demonstrated a breach of this duty, and the appellant had indeed suffered a recognised psychiatric illness, initially diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder with Depression and later as Major Depressive Disorder. The court held that the trial judge's approach of seeking to determine whether the respondent ought to have foreseen the *particular* psychiatric condition was erroneous. Applying established principles, the court affirmed that it was sufficient for the respondent to have foreseen the general class of injury, psychiatric injury, as a consequence of its conduct. The court noted that the respondent's conduct was such as to create a foreseeable risk of psychological injury, and that there were reasonably practicable means of avoiding this risk.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.