Robinson v Each Ltd

Robinson, the plaintiff, commenced proceedings against Each Ltd, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, claiming compensation for psychiatric injury arising from her employment as a mental health support worker. Robinson alleged that she was subjected to unreasonable exposure to vicarious trauma during her home visits and that the defendant failed to provide adequate support and appropriate return to work arrangements, leading to further psychological harm. The primary dispute centred on whether the defendant breached its duty of care towards Robinson by failing to recognise and mitigate the foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the defendant owed a duty of care to Robinson, whether this duty was breached, and whether the risk of psychiatric injury was foreseeable at the time Robinson first disclosed her psychological trauma to the employer. The court also had to assess whether the defendant responded reasonably to Robinson's disclosure and made appropriate return to work arrangements. Furthermore, the court examined whether Robinson's further exposure to vicarious trauma outside the return to work arrangements constituted a breach of the defendant's duty of care.

The court held that the defendant did owe a duty of care to Robinson, and that the risk of psychiatric injury was foreseeable given the undisputed evidence that the defendant was aware of the inherent risks associated with Robinson's role prior to the disclosure of her psychological trauma. The court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the defendant responded reasonably to Robinson's disclosure and made appropriate return to work arrangements. However, the court acknowledged that Robinson's further exposure to vicarious trauma outside these arrangements constituted a breach of the defendant's duty of care. Ultimately, the court determined that the judge did not err in his findings and dismissed the appeal. The leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed as there was no error in the trial judge's decision.