Optus Administration Pty Limited v Glenn Wright by his tutor James Stuart Wright

The appeal concerned the liability of Optus Administration Pty Limited (Optus) for psychiatric injury allegedly suffered by Glenn Wright. Mr Wright, a former employee of Optus, claimed that he had developed a recognised psychiatric illness as a result of the conduct of Optus and its employees. The primary dispute revolved around whether Optus owed Mr Wright a duty of care to prevent such harm, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in finding that Optus owed Mr Wright a duty of care to prevent him from suffering a recognised psychiatric illness, and consequently, whether Optus was liable for negligence. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of section 32 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), which governs liability for psychiatric injury, and whether the harm suffered by Mr Wright was reasonably foreseeable. The court also considered issues of vicarious liability and the attribution of knowledge to an employer from its employees, particularly in circumstances where no direct duty of care or negligence was established on the part of any employee.

The Court of Appeal allowed Optus's appeal, setting aside the orders of the Common Law Division that had found Optus liable. The court reasoned that the trial judge had erred in finding that Optus owed Mr Wright a duty of care to prevent psychiatric harm. The court concluded that the circumstances did not give rise to a reasonably foreseeable risk of recognised psychiatric illness, a prerequisite for establishing such a duty under section 32 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). Furthermore, the court found no basis for vicarious liability as there was no finding of negligence or breach of duty on the part of any Optus employee. Consequently, the court entered judgment for Optus against Mr Wright and dismissed his amended statement of claim. The cross-claims between Optus and other parties were also dismissed.