Rees v Lumen Christi Primary School - [2011] VSCA 361

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2010 0099

MARGARET REES
	Appellant
v
LUMEN CHRISTI PRIMARY SCHOOL	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	ASHLEY, MANDIE and HANSEN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 November 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 November 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 361
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Rees v Lumen Christi Primary School (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Robson J, 14 July 2010)

---

TORTS – Trial by judge and jury – Employer and employee – Breach of duty – Negligence – Physical and psychiatric injury – Whether trial judge misdirected or failed to adequately direct jury with respect to appellant’s case on causation – Appeal allowed – New trial ordered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr D G Brookes SC and Mr J J Fitzpatrick	Stringer Clark
For the Respondent	Mr J Ruskin QC and Mr S A O’Meara	Lander & Rogers

ASHLEY JA:

Margaret Rees, the appellant, brought a proceeding in the Supreme Court at Warrnambool for damages for personal injuries against her former employer, Lumen Christi Primary School, the respondent to this appeal. The proceeding was commenced by a writ filed 13 December 2007.

The appellant’s case

The statement of claim was far from being a model of the draftsman's art. Moreover, it did not altogether coincide with the appellant's case as presented at trial. But no point was made about that, either at the trial or before this Court.

In substance, the appellant alleged that – (1) between March and July 2003 the respondent breached the duty of care which it owed her as an employee integration aide, and that such breach was a cause of her suffering a major depressive disorder with anxiety; and (2), on 13 June 2003, the respondent breached the duty of care which it owed her, and that such breach was a cause of her suffering physical injury, (essentially to her right shoulder) and consequential psychiatric injury (that is, the injury previously described).

The overall burden of the appellant's case, not for the moment discriminating between the causes of action, was that in the first half of 2003, working as an integration aide in a combined years 2 to 3 class at the school, she was repeatedly exposed to grossly difficult and aggressive behaviour by a student. The exposure was both personal and secondary. In the latter connection, she alleged that the student periodically attacked other students, and caused other disruption.

Then, the appellant’s claim went on, on 13 June the student assaulted another student and she, the appellant, had to physically restrain the child. The restraint involved a real struggle between them.

The appellant further asserted that, in the period of resumed work which began after she had recovered from the immediate effects of injury on 13 June and which ended on about 25 July 2003, she was not supported, but was rather made an object of blame – mainly by the school principal.

The appellant claimed that – (1) she suffered psychiatric injury…

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 Rees v Lumen Christi Primary School

Details

AGLC: Rees v Lumen Christi Primary School [2011] VSCA 361
Case: [2011] VSCA 361
Decision Date: 10 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rees v Lumen Christi Primary School, the appellant brought an action against the respondent, a Catholic primary school, alleging that the school was negligent in its duty of care towards the appellant, a former employee. The appellant claimed that the school failed to provide a safe working environment, leading to both physical and psychiatric injuries. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge misdirected or failed to adequately direct the jury regarding the appellant's case on causation, particularly in relation to the psychiatric injuries. The appellant argued that the school’s failure to address workplace bullying and harassment directly contributed to the injuries sustained. The respondent contended that the trial judge had properly directed the jury and that the evidence did not sufficiently support the appellant's claims of causation.

The court found that the trial judge did indeed misdirect the jury regarding the appellant's case on causation. The judge's directions did not fully encompass the legal principles necessary to assess the connection between the respondent's alleged negligence and the appellant's injuries. The court held that the trial judge’s directions were inadequate and failed to properly guide the jury in considering the appellant's evidence regarding the causation of the psychiatric injuries. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered to allow the jury to properly assess the causation issue with correct legal directions.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal and the ordering of a new trial to ensure that the jury would be properly directed on the issue of causation in relation to the appellant’s claims.

Orders