What happened

Hurex employed the plaintiff and placed him with Lederer to perform cleaning and some caretaker or security duties at a shopping centre. After a pedestrian was killed by a truck in the loading dock on 26 October 2020, he was called in early to relieve a distressed colleague and was briefly present near the covered body and emergency vehicles. The District Court accepted that he developed chronic PTSD and major depressive disorder following that exposure.

The issues

The questions were whether the proved exposure caused a recognised psychiatric illness, whether each employer should reasonably have foreseen and prevented that mental harm, and how responsibility should be allocated between them. The court also considered contributory negligence for the plaintiff’s voluntary return to the area and the different damages available against the host under the Civil Liability Act 2002 and against the employer under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court's decision

At first instance, Hurex and Lederer were found liable, responsibility between them was apportioned 15% and 85%, and the plaintiff’s damages were reduced by 10% for contributory negligence; final calculations were left for agreed orders. In Lederer Group Pty Ltd v Hodson [2024] NSWCA 303, the Court of Appeal held that the limited exposure did not make psychiatric injury reasonably foreseeable in the required sense and that the expert causation opinions rested on materially unproved assumptions, so both liability findings were set aside.

Understanding the figures

The appellate reasons record that the District Court ultimately entered AUD 597,916 against Lederer and AUD 472,793 against Hurex. Both judgments were set aside on appeal, so neither figure should be treated as a surviving or finally recovered award.

What this case shows

The litigation illustrates the distinct positions of a labour-hire employer and host occupier, the normal-fortitude inquiry for pure mental harm under s 32 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), and the need to prove the factual assumptions underpinning expert causation evidence. Objective evidence such as CCTV may leave a diagnosis intact yet substantially undermine whether the defendant’s conduct legally caused the condition.

Why another case may differ

This entry concerns the April 2024 District Court reasons, but the liability and damages result did not survive the December 2024 appeal. Foreseeability and causation in psychiatric-injury claims remain highly sensitive to the precise exposure, any vulnerability known to the defendant, and the accuracy of the facts supplied to medical experts.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →