Sherman v La Trobe University

Sherman (the applicant) brought proceedings against La Trobe University (the respondent) in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant alleged that the respondent had breached its duty of care to her by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent her from suffering psychiatric injury. The applicant claimed that she had been subjected to a campaign of harassment and bullying by a colleague, and that the university had failed to adequately address her complaints, leading to her developing a psychiatric illness.

The central legal issue before Hayne J was whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the applicant to prevent her from suffering psychiatric injury arising from the conduct of a third party (her colleague) within the workplace. This involved considering the scope of an employer's duty of care in relation to the psychological well-being of its employees, particularly when the harm alleged arose from the actions of another employee. The court also had to determine whether, assuming a duty of care existed, the respondent had breached that duty by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm.

Hayne J found that an employer does owe a duty of care to its employees to take reasonable steps to prevent them from suffering psychiatric injury arising from the conduct of other employees. However, his Honour held that the respondent had not breached this duty. The court reasoned that the respondent had taken some steps to address the applicant's complaints, including investigating the matter and implementing certain measures. While these steps may not have ultimately resolved the applicant's distress, they were found to be reasonable in the circumstances, and the respondent could not be held liable for failing to achieve a perfect outcome. The court concluded that the respondent had acted reasonably in its response to the applicant's allegations.