Woolworths Limited v Perrins

Link copied
Case Copied 76 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Woolworths Limited v Perrins [2015] QCA 207

PARTIES:

WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
ACN 000 014 675
(appellant)
v
TREVOR PERRINS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4917 of 2015
DC No 67 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 24 April 2015

DELIVERED ON:

27 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 September 2015

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   The judgment below is set aside.

3.   Judgment is entered for the appellant.

4.   The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the trial and this appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – WHERE NERVOUS SHOCK OR MENTAL DISORDER – where the respondent was employed by the appellant – where the respondent applied to take part in a management training programme during his employment – where the respondent was accepted into the programme then removed before the programme commenced – where the respondent made a second application for the management training programme the following year but was again removed before it commenced – where the respondent was diagnosed with “adjustment disorder with depressed mood”, “dissociative disorder”, and “substance abuse disorder” following his removal from the programme the second time – where the respondent had a history of drug abuse and depression – where the respondent had not indicated any factors which would negatively impact his performance when applying for employment – where the respondent gave evidence at trial that he had notified the appellant of his vulnerability to psychiatric injury – whether the fundamental findings of fact made by the trial judge should stand – whether the appellant was negligent – whether the appellant’s duty of care as an employer extended to avoiding psychiatric injury liable to be caused by insistence on meeting the criteria for promotion – whether appellant’s alleged breach of duty caused the respondent’s psychiatric injury – whether the respondent’s psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable

Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1985] 3 WLR 640, cited
Banque Commerciale SA (In liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; [1990] HCA 11, cited
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, cited
Hegarty v Queensland Ambulance Service[2007] QCA 366, cited
Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd (2005) 222 CLR 44; [2005] HCA 15, applied
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254; [2000] HCA 61, cited
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Naidu (2007) 71 NSWLR 471; [2007] NSWCA 377, applied
Queensland Corrective Services Commission v Gallagher[1998] QCA 426, cited
Société d’Avances Commerciales (Société Anonyme Egyptienne) v Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co (“The Palitana”) (1924) 20 LI L Rep 140, cited
Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woolworths Limited v Perrins and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2015] QCA 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths Limited, the appellant, appealed against a decision of the County Court of Victoria which found it was negligent in the way it handled the employment of the respondent, Mr. Perrins, leading to his psychiatric injury. The County Court awarded Mr. Perrins damages for the injuries he suffered. Mr. Perrins had applied twice to take part in a management training programme offered by Woolworths. Both times, he was removed from the programme before it commenced. Following his second removal, he was diagnosed with "adjustment disorder with depressed mood", "dissociative disorder", and "substance abuse disorder". He had a history of drug abuse and depression but had not indicated any factors which would negatively impact his performance when applying for employment. He gave evidence at trial that he had notified Woolworths of his vulnerability to psychiatric injury.

The legal issues in the appeal related to whether the fundamental findings of fact made by the trial judge should stand, whether Woolworths was negligent, whether its duty of care as an employer extended to avoiding psychiatric injury liable to be caused by insistence on meeting the criteria for promotion, and whether Woolworths’ alleged breach of duty caused Mr. Perrins’ psychiatric injury, and whether his psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable. The appeal was allowed and the judgment below was set aside. Judgment was entered for Woolworths and Mr. Perrins was ordered to pay Woolworths’ costs of and incidental to the trial and this appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The judgment below is set aside.

3. Judgment is entered for the appellant.

4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the trial and this appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.