Potter v Gympie Regional Council

Link copied
Case Copied 76 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Potter v Gympie Regional Council [2022] QSC 9

PARTIES:

RONALD POTTER

(plaintiff)

v

GYMPIE REGIONAL COUNCIL

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 12923 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 February 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 23 February 2021

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDER:

The order of the Court is that:

1.   The Claim should be dismissed.

2.   That the parties provide submissions as to costs within seven days.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE: EXISTENCE – where the plaintiff seeks damages for breach of contract and negligence – where the plaintiff was suspended from work pending an investigation – where the plaintiff was cleared of allegations of serious misconduct, but findings of misconduct and poor management were made – where the plaintiff alleges he suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of negligent conduct in relation to the suspension – whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a relevant duty of care

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH – GENERALLY – whether a duty of care is excluded – whether any duty of care is extended to include a duty to provide adequate support, lifting the suspension post investigation and keeping the plaintiff informed of the investigation – whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to only suspend the plaintiff’s employment if to do so was a lawful and reasonable direction and the criteria in the defendant’s discipline procedure were met – whether the defendant was obliged to comply with its procedure as it was a lawful and reasonable direction – whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care during investigation and suspension including a duty to provide a safe system of work

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE AND CAUSATION – whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff would suffer a psychiatric injury – whether the plaintiff’s psychiatric injury was the result of a breach of a duty of care by the defendant   

Enterprise Bargaining Agreement for the Cooloola Shire Council
Gympie Regional Council Certified Agreement 2018

Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) s 197
Local Government Industry Award 2010
Local Government Regulations 2012 (Qld) ss 279, 282, 283
Public Sector Ethics Act 1994
Queensland Local Government Officers’ Award 1998
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 19, 247
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 305B, 305C, 305D, 305E

Australian Telecommunications Commission v Hart (1982) 43 ALR 165, cited
Avenia v Railway and Transport Health Fund Limited [2017] FCA 859, considered
Barber v Somerset County Council (2004) 1 WLR 1089
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v

Bou Najem (2009) 239 CLR 420, cited
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169, considered
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 214 ALR 349, cited
Eaton v Tricare (Country) Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 139, cited

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Potter v Gympie Regional Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] QSC 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Potter v Gympie Regional Council, the plaintiff, Mr Potter, brought a claim against the defendant, Gympie Regional Council, for damages resulting from his suspension from employment. The basis for the claim was both breach of contract and negligence. Mr Potter was suspended pending an investigation into allegations of misconduct. Although he was ultimately cleared of the more serious allegations, the investigation found instances of misconduct and poor management. Mr Potter alleged that the suspension and subsequent investigation caused him to suffer a psychiatric injury. The court had to determine whether the Council owed Mr Potter a duty of care and whether any breach of that duty caused his injury.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the Gympie Regional Council owed Mr Potter a duty of care in the context of his suspension and the subsequent investigation. The court examined whether such a duty of care existed, whether it extended to providing adequate support and keeping Mr Potter informed, and whether the Council was required to follow its disciplinary procedures. Furthermore, the court assessed whether it was reasonably foreseeable that Mr Potter would suffer a psychiatric injury due to the Council's actions and whether his injury was indeed caused by a breach of duty.

The court held that the Gympie Regional Council did not owe Mr Potter a duty of care that extended to the manner of his suspension or the conduct of the investigation. It found that the Council was not obliged to follow its disciplinary procedures as a lawful and reasonable direction. The court concluded that there was no breach of duty that caused Mr Potter’s psychiatric injury. Given this, the claim was dismissed. The court ordered that the parties submit their costs within seven days.

The court’s final orders were that the claim should be dismissed and that the parties provide submissions regarding costs within the stipulated timeframe. The court determined that no discount for pre-existing conditions or vulnerabilities was appropriate, and future superannuation was to be calculated based on 13.5%.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the Court is that:

1. The Claim should be dismissed.

2. That the parties provide submissions as to costs within seven days.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The Council contends there should be a discount of 20% whereas the plaintiff contends that a discount of 12% is appropriate. I think an appropriate discount for the vicissitudes of life would be 15%. Although I consider Mr Potter was a heavy drinker prior to the 2014 events I have not found he had an alcohol abuse disorder and has no other known health conditions, although it is evident he was psychologically vulnerable. I therefore am not making any additional discount on that basis. He has no other pre-existing condition. Future Superannuation then must be calculated based on 13.5%.Conclusion The claim is dismissed. I will allow the parties seven (7) days to make any submissions as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.