What happened

Ward experienced threats, humiliation and physical harassment by his State Manager over about 14 months in 2003–2004. He continued working afterwards but stopped in late 2010. Treating and expert medical evidence linked his psychiatric illness and lasting incapacity to that abuse, and the employer called no competing medical evidence.

The issues

The central questions were whether the manager’s conduct amounted to intentional infliction of harm and whether the company was responsible for it. A separate question was whether the employer had negligently failed to prevent reasonably foreseeable psychiatric injury to this employee.

The court's decision

The Court found reckless indifference to the likelihood of psychiatric injury in a course of conduct pursued through the manager’s apparent authority to improve the business. The company was therefore liable for that intentional harm. Although the negligence claim failed, Ward recovered A$1,394,421.91 for economic loss, with interest and costs additional.

Understanding the figures

The historical AUD sum of A$1,394,421.91 comprised agreed past and future earnings loss, superannuation and leave loading. Interest and costs were additional, with short minutes to calculate them. The figure is not an all-heads award including treatment expenses or non-economic loss.

What this case shows

Different legal bases for the same workplace abuse can produce different answers. The Court treated the physical and verbal abuse as one course of conduct connected with the exercise of managerial authority, rather than separating the physical acts from the management task.

Why another case may differ

Division 3 of Part 5 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 restricted the damages to earnings-related economic loss; this was not a general award for distress. The negligence analysis turned on the information available to the employer and its removal of the manager. The connection with employment, foreseeability and medical causation may differ in another case.

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? →