JUDGE:	DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	23-27 FEBRUARY, 2–6 MARCH 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 MAY 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	RAWLINGS v RAWLINGS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 171

---

TORTS — Negligence — Duty of care — Workplace injury — Psychiatric injury — Foreseeability — Scope of employer’s duty to prevent psychiatric injury — Plaintiff employed in parent’s building business which failed — Whether plaintiff assigned employment tasks in breach of common law duties in respect of the winding up of the affairs of the business by his mother following his father’s mental breakdown— Circumstances affecting relationship between employer and employee — Whether parent/child relationship relevant — Application of Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd — Whether psychiatric injury caused by employer directives in breach of a duty.

TORTS — Negligence— Assessment of damages —Psychiatric injury —Application of Malec v Hutton to assessment of damages.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr ADB Ingram with Mr G Worth	Slater & Gordon
For the Defendant	Mr RJ Stanley QC with Mr R Kumar	Thomson Geer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Issues.................................................................................................................................................... 2

Factual findings.................................................................................................................................. 3

Did the defendants owe a duty of care........................................................................................ 18

The plaintiff’s submissions........................................................................................................ 18
The applicable principles.......................................................................................................... 23
Why no duty is owed................................................................................................................. 34
Was the relevant relationship between the parties one of employment?................. 35
The nature of the work...................................................................................................... 38
The objective signs............................................................................................................ 41

Quantum............................................................................................................................................ 49

Course of treatment and assessment of the plaintiff’s injury............................................... 49
Quantum findings....................................................................................................................... 64
Pecuniary loss.............................................................................................................................. 69
Pain and Suffering....................................................................................................................... 72

Orders................................................................................................................................................. 72

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff, who is now aged 54 years, suffers from a major depressive disorder, which he claimed had destroyed his capacity for gainful employment and caused him pain and suffering. He was a carpenter and was employed from the commencement of his apprenticeship until 1994 by the defendants, who are his parents, in a building business. His father worked in the business ‘on the tools’ and he also managed the administration of the business. His mother had little practical involvement in the management of the business and no involvement in building work. The business collapsed financially in 1994 when the defendants each signed a deed of assignment under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

The plaintiff claims that, between January and April 1994, his mother, in connection with his parent’s bankruptcy, as his employer, directed him to undertake work for which he was neither trained nor experienced. By approximately 1993, the building business was in financial decline, although the extent of the decline and the future prospects for the business were not explained to, or understood by, the plaintiff until the accountants became involved in March 1994. The plaintiff complained about two distinct types of directions. On the one hand, directions to manage and complete three…

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 Rawlings v Rawlings

Details

AGLC: Rawlings v Rawlings [2015] VSC 171
Case: [2015] VSC 171
Decision Date: 5 MAY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rawlings v Rawlings involved the plaintiff, who was employed in his parents' building business, and his mother, who was the employer. The dispute arose following the business's failure and the father's mental breakdown. The plaintiff claimed compensation for psychiatric injury he suffered as a result of his employment tasks during the winding up of the business. The court was required to determine whether the employer had a duty of care to prevent the plaintiff's psychiatric injury and if the parent/child relationship affected the scope of that duty.

The court examined the foreseeability of the plaintiff's psychiatric injury and whether the employer breached common law duties in assigning employment tasks to him during the winding up of the business. The court also considered the application of the principles set out in Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd and whether the psychiatric injury was caused by employer directives in breach of a duty. The court assessed the relationship between the employer and employee, and whether the parent/child relationship was relevant in determining the scope of the employer's duty of care.

In determining the outcome, the court found that the employer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and that the parent/child relationship did not affect the scope of that duty. The court held that the employer breached this duty by assigning employment tasks to the plaintiff during the winding up of the business, which caused his psychiatric injury. The court applied the principles from Malec v Hutton in assessing the damages for the plaintiff's psychiatric injury. The court awarded the plaintiff compensation for his psychiatric injury.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff compensation for his psychiatric injury, as well as costs. The court also noted that the parent/child relationship did not affect the scope of the employer's duty of care, and that the employer breached this duty by assigning employment tasks to the plaintiff during the winding up of the business. The court held that the psychiatric injury was caused by employer directives in breach of a duty, and applied the principles from Malec v Hutton in assessing the damages for the plaintiff's psychiatric injury.

Orders