What happened

The employer assisted in producing a documentary about child-protection work and encouraged staff to watch it. The broadcast on 10 October 2021 included an internal review of a former client's case without advance warning to the caseworker. It was undisputed that watching it caused psychiatric injury and left her unable to work.

The issues

The key question was whether the employer could reasonably foresee that this caseworker would recognise the case and perceive the review as blaming her. The court considered precautions such as warning her or changing the content, and whether future economic loss should reflect continuing total incapacity.

The court's decision

The court found that the broadcast could convey personal blame despite the reviewers' intentions, and that reasonable precautions had not been taken. It awarded economic-loss damages. On 7 September 2026 the Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, stressing the State's forensic position that foreseeability of recognition and perceived blame would establish foreseeability of psychiatric injury.

Understanding the figures

The 2025 judgment was AUD 1,389,457.74 for past and future economic loss, superannuation and the Fox v Wood component. It was before deduction of weekly compensation, reported at the time as AUD 333,258.62. The section 151A deduction and the separate regulated costs order mean these figures do not establish cash received.

What this case shows

Safeguards for people appearing in workplace publicity may overlook other employees who can recognise the material. Good intentions and a systemic purpose did not determine how the edited broadcast could be understood. The appeal also shows why a result must be read with the concessions that shaped the litigation.

Why another case may differ

These work injury damages were confined to economic loss and do not establish compensation for every distressing workplace criticism. The appeal was constrained by the decision not to litigate psychiatric-injury foreseeability separately from recognition and perceived blame. Identifying details of the protected young person are omitted; this analysis makes no finding of actual fault by the caseworker.

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? →