Legal Research
Cases
Queensland Corrective Services Commission v Gallagher

Queensland Corrective Services Commission v Gallagher

Case [1998] QCA 426 18 December 1998

Duty of Care

Causation

Negligence

Breach of Statutory Duty

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 426
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 7588 of 1998

Brisbane
[QCSC v. Gallagher]
BETWEEN:
QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:
PAUL FRANCIS GALLAGHER

(Plaintiff) Respondent
de Jersey CJ
Pincus JA
White J

Judgment delivered 18 December 1998
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court each concurring as to the orders made.
APPEAL ALLOWED. SET ASIDE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, WITH COSTS OF THE APPEAL AND TRIAL TO BE TAXED.

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE - employer’s duty of care - failure to objectively consider whether injury a reasonably foreseeable consequence of appellant’s conduct - failure to consider whether appellant’s alleged omission was the probable cause of injury - whether breach of statutory duty - s. 9 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 - failure to consider whether a causal link between injury and alleged deficiency in workplace - manager of correctional centre suing employer for failing to prevent his suffering from a stress related psychiatric condition
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v. Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301
Hamilton v. Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18
Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Vozza v. Tooth &Co. Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316
Turner v. State of South Australia (1982) 56 ALJR 839
Wodrow v. Commonwealth (1993) 45 FCR 52
McLoughlin v. O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410
Chappel v. Hart (1998) 72 ALJR 1344
McGhee v. National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1
Rogers v. Brambles Australia Limited [1998] 1 QdR 212
Kingshott v. Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Co Australia Ltd (No.2)

(1987) 8 NSWLR 707
Bourhill v. Young [1943] AC 92

Counsel:	Mr D. North SC, with him Mr M. O’Sullivan for the appellant. Mr R. Douglas QC, with him Mr R. King-Scott for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Mr B.T. Dunphy, Crown Solicitor for the appellant. Watkins Stokes Templeton for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	23November1998

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 7588 of 1998

Brisbane

Before

de Jersey CJ
Pincus JA
White J

[QCSC v. Gallagher]

BETWEEN:

QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

PAUL FRANCIS GALLAGHER

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - de JERSEY CJ

Judgment delivered 18 December 1998

The respondent was employed by the appellant in managerial positions at Lotus Glen
Correctional Centre from 4 February 1991 until ceasing active work on 13 January 1994. In the
course of that work, he developed a major depressive illness, and sued the appellant for damages
for negligence and breach of statutory duty.
The respondent’s claim for damages rests on a number of fundamental facts as found by the
learned trial judge, essentially as follows. The respondent felt that he was pressured by his working
environment. From early 1992, that was clear to the appellant, emphasised later that year when the
respondent…

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 Queensland Corrective Services Commission v Gallagher

Details

AGLC: Queensland Corrective Services Commission v Gallagher [1998] QCA 426
Case: [1998] QCA 426
Decision Date: 18/12/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a legal dispute between the Queensland Corrective Services Commission, acting as the employer, and Mr. Gallagher, a former employee who was a manager of a correctional centre. Mr. Gallagher sought damages for a stress-related psychiatric condition he claimed was caused by the employer's failure to prevent his suffering from such a condition. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the employer breached its duty of care by failing to objectively assess whether Mr. Gallagher's psychiatric condition was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct. The court was also required to determine if the employer breached its statutory duty under section 9 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 by not considering whether there was a causal link between Mr. Gallagher's injury and an alleged deficiency in the workplace.

In its judgment, the court found that the employer did not adequately consider the foreseeability of Mr. Gallagher's psychiatric condition as a result of his conduct, nor did it consider whether his alleged omission was the probable cause of his injury. The court held that the employer's failure to objectively evaluate these matters constituted a breach of its duty of care. Furthermore, the court determined that the employer's failure to consider the causal link between the injury and the alleged workplace deficiency also amounted to a breach of the statutory duty under section 9 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. The court's findings resulted in a reversal of the primary judgment, leading to Mr. Gallagher's claim being reinstated.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly detailed in the text. However, given the reversal of the primary judgment and the reinstatement of Mr. Gallagher's claim, it is likely that the court ordered further proceedings to determine the extent of damages owed to Mr. Gallagher by the Queensland Corrective Services Commission.

Orders