Legal Research
Cases
Tsiragakis v Mallet

Tsiragakis v Mallet

Case [2025] VSCA 134 17 June 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2024 0085

STELLIANI TSIRAGAKIS	Applicant
v
AMY MALLET	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KENNEDY and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 June 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 134
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 407 (Judge Clayton)

---

NEGLIGENCE – Duty of care – Psychiatric injury – Co-worker attempted suicide by driving motor vehicle into power pole – Where applicant accompanied work supervisor to scene of collision – Applicant saw ambulance driving in opposite direction – Where applicant arrived at scene 40 minutes after incident occurred – Where applicant’s co-worker no longer at scene – Where applicant saw damaged car and power pole – Police officer at scene opined that collision had been intentional – Applicant subsequently developed psychiatric injury – Whether applicant was owed duty of care as co-worker who may witness the ‘aftermath’ of event – No duty of care established on the agreed facts – Appeal dismissed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Parties mutually agreed to separate trial of preliminary question as to duty of care – Parties adduced agreed statement of facts – Applicant later abandoned facts relevant to nature of personal relationship between applicant and co-worker – Facts clearly identified – No basis for speculating as to what further evidence might have been adduced – Parties bound by procedure adopted by agreement of legal representatives.

Civil Procedure Act 2010, s 7; County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2018, r 47.04.

Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317, applied; Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549; King v Philcox (2015) 255 CLR 304; Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383; Wicks v State Rail Authority (NSW) (2010) 241 CLR 60; Caffrey v AAI Ltd [2019] QSC 7; FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Lucre (2000) 50 NSWLR 261; Homsi v Homsi (2016) 51 VR 694; Bass v Permanent Trustees Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334, considered.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Dr JC Plunkett
Respondent:		Mr J Ruskin KC with Mr R Ajzensztat
Solicitors
Applicant:	Slater and Gordon
Respondent:	Transport Accident Commission

BEACH JA
KENNEDY JA:

The applicant and respondent were work colleagues. On 2 May 2014, at around 2:50 pm, the respondent attempted suicide by driving her motor vehicle into a power pole. The applicant did not witness this incident, but arrived at the scene at approximately 3:30 pm, by which time the respondent had already been taken away. The applicant observed a damaged vehicle and power pole. She then spoke to a police officer who expressed the view that the respondent had intentionally driven her car into the power pole. The applicant says she felt in ‘complete shock’.
The applicant sued her employer and the respondent for negligence in the County Court in respect of the psychiatric injury she developed following this event.
Both parties consented to the making of an order that there be…

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 Tsiragakis v Mallet

Details

AGLC: Tsiragakis v Mallet [2025] VSCA 134
Case: [2025] VSCA 134
Decision Date: 17 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tsiragakis v Mallet, the Court was called upon to consider whether the applicant, who witnessed the aftermath of a collision caused by a co-worker's suicide attempt, was owed a duty of care by the co-worker. The Court was required to determine if the applicant's psychiatric injury was a foreseeable consequence of the co-worker's actions, considering the circumstances in which the applicant arrived at the scene and the nature of their relationship with the co-worker. The County Court heard the case on a mutually agreed set of facts, with the central issue being whether a duty of care existed under the specific circumstances presented.

The central legal issue was whether the co-worker owed a duty of care to the applicant, considering the applicant's arrival at the scene approximately 40 minutes after the incident, when the co-worker was no longer present. The Court examined the foreseeability of psychiatric injury to the applicant, in light of the established principles for determining duty of care in cases involving pure psychiatric harm. The Court also considered the proximity of the relationship between the applicant and the co-worker, and whether this relationship was sufficiently close to warrant the imposition of a duty of care.

In resolving the matter, the Court found that the applicant's psychiatric injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the co-worker's actions, given the significant time lapse between the incident and the applicant's arrival at the scene. The Court noted that the applicant did not witness the co-worker at the scene, nor did they have a particularly close personal relationship with the co-worker. The Court concluded that, on the facts agreed upon by the parties, no duty of care was owed by the co-worker to the applicant, and therefore the applicant's claim for damages was dismissed. The appeal was also dismissed, as the agreed facts did not support a finding that a duty of care was breached.

The Court's decision hinged on the application of established legal principles to the specific facts of the case, particularly the foreseeability of the injury and the nature of the relationship between the parties. The Court's findings were based on the agreed facts, and there was no basis for speculating about the potential impact of additional evidence. The Court adhered to the procedural agreement of the parties, which provided for the separate trial of the issue of duty of care. The final orders of the Court reflected the dismissal of the applicant's claim and the co-worker's appeal.

Orders