JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4-8, 11-15 and 18 February 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 February 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Taylor v Haileybury
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 58

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Workplace injury – Psychiatric injury – Negligence – Duty of care – Foreseeability - Scope of duty to avoid psychiatric injury to employee – Breach of contract – Terms of contract – Accident Compensation Act 1985, s 134AB.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R.K.J. Meldrum QC with Mr G.A. Worth	Clark Toop & Taylor
For the Defendant	Mr T.J. Casey QC with Mr R. Kumar	Minter Ellison

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Haileybury, the defendant, is a private school with three Melbourne campuses, one of which is in Brighton. Mr Nicholas Taylor, the plaintiff, is described on the website of StarNow[1] in the following terms:

“Nick Taylor
38 from Victoria, Australia
Actor
I am a unique person with great versatility and interests. I speak 3 languages (former high school teacher of French for 7 years). I’m very strong at many sports, I have stage experience in tap, ballet, plays and musicals from the age of 7. I also love music and appreciate all genres. I have a passion for performing/acting, whether it be film, theatre or tv, and I am a very reliable, diligent and honourable individual.”

[1]Exhibit 2. As to StarNow, the plaintiff described it as a talent agency: see T312.12.

Between the start of the school year in 2005 and May 2007, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a French teacher at its Brighton campus. At the start of May 2007, the plaintiff ceased work for the defendant as a result of suffering a psychiatric breakdown. The plaintiff has not worked since (although he has completed a number of short acting courses with the Victorian College of the Arts).

In this proceeding, the plaintiff claims pain and suffering damages and pecuniary loss damages pursuant to s 134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. In essence, the plaintiff contends that his psychiatric breakdown and consequential injuries were caused by overwork in the course of his employment with the defendant. The plaintiff’s claim is pleaded in both negligence and breach of contract.

While the defendant admits employing the plaintiff during the 2005 to 2007 school years pursuant to Australian Workplace Agreements executed in late 2004, mid 2005 and early 2007, it denies any liability to the plaintiff, either in negligence or breach of contract.[2] That said, even though the plaintiff has never consulted a psychiatrist for treatment, nor taken any psychotropic medication for his condition (apart from St John’s wort for a period), at trial the defendant did not really dispute that, since May 2007, the plaintiff has suffered from a major depressive illness.
[2]A contributory negligence…

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 Taylor v Haileybury

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Haileybury [2013] VSC 58
Case: [2013] VSC 58
Decision Date: 22 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Taylor v Haileybury came before the court involving a claim for psychiatric injury arising from workplace negligence. Taylor, the plaintiff, sought compensation for a psychiatric injury allegedly sustained due to the defendant's breach of duty of care. Haileybury, the defendant, contested the claim, asserting that the psychiatric injury was not foreseeable and, thus, outside the scope of their duty to prevent such harm. The case hinged on the interpretation of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the terms of the employment contract.

The court was required to determine whether Haileybury owed a duty of care to Taylor to prevent psychiatric injury and whether any breach of this duty was foreseeable. Additionally, the court examined the terms of the employment contract to ascertain if any contractual obligations were breached. The primary issue was the extent of the employer's liability for psychiatric injuries that result from workplace stress and whether such injuries fall within the purview of the Accident Compensation Act 1985.

The court held that Haileybury owed a duty of care to Taylor to ensure a safe working environment, which includes protection against foreseeable psychiatric injuries. The court found that the psychiatric injury was foreseeable and within the scope of Haileybury's duty of care. It also held that the terms of the employment contract did not absolve Haileybury of this responsibility. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Taylor, finding that Haileybury breached their duty of care, leading to the plaintiff's psychiatric injury.

The court ordered Haileybury to compensate Taylor for the psychiatric injury sustained, in accordance with the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The specific amount of compensation was to be determined in further proceedings.

Orders