S v State of New South Wales

Case

[2009] NSWCA 164

17 July 2009


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
S v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 164 [2009] NSWCA 164 17 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of S v State of New South Wales concerned an appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales by an undercover police officer who had suffered psychiatric injury. The officer alleged that the State of New South Wales, as his employer, had breached its duty of care by exposing him to an excessive duration of undercover service without adequate mental health reviews, which he claimed caused or materially contributed to his injury.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the duration of the appellant's undercover service was excessive, whether the employer ought to have provided for compulsory reviews of the officer's mental health, and ultimately, whether the State's alleged negligence caused or materially contributed to the appellant's psychiatric injury.

The Court of Appeal found in favour of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and costs orders made at first instance. The Court entered judgment for the appellant in the sum of $1,679,936.71, plus any amount assessed by the primary judge for domestic assistance, and remitted the assessment of damages for domestic assistance back to the primary judge. The Court also made specific orders regarding the confidentiality of its reasons for judgment, directing that disclosure be limited and that written submissions and draft orders be filed concerning part payment, costs, and confidentiality.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Negligence & Tort

  • Employment Law

  • Evidence

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Duty of Care

  • Causation

  • Damages

  • Remedies

  • Expert Evidence

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

7

Cases Cited

17

Statutory Material Cited

0

S v State of New South Wales [2008] NSWSC 933
New South Wales v Fahy [2007] HCA 20
New South Wales v Fahy [2007] HCA 20