Introduction

Anecdotal evidence suggests that whilst workplace stress claims continue to rise, they do not often result in actions for common law damages. However, one such claim was recently considered by the District Court in Finlay v The State of Western Australia [2012] WADC132.

The Court dealt with a claim for damages arising from stress caused in the workplace involving allegations of negligence and breach of contract. The decision highlights the importance for employers of conducting regular performance reviews and establishing and implementing pragmatic policies within their organisations.

The Facts

The Plaintiff, a long term employee of the Defendant, alleged that she suffered a psychiatric injury and sought damages as a result of being subjected to excessive workloads and distressing telephone incidents. She claimed her illness developed during her employment between 2003 to 2007 (material period) and particularly, as a result of her being subjected to abusive and distressing telephone calls which were made by a customer on 12 April 2005 (material day).

The Issue

The Court observed that an employer's duty included a duty to take reasonable care to eliminate risks for both physical and mental injuries. The principal issue at trial was the foreseeability of the Plaintiff suffering psychiatric injury during her employment. It required the Court to consider whether the risk of the Plaintiff suffering a recognised psychiatric condition was reasonably foreseeable, in the sense that it was not far-fetched or fanciful.

The Plaintiff's case

The Plaintiff claimed that during the material period:

  • She was required to carry out duties in an extremely stressful workplace;
  • The quantity of work was too great; and
  • There were inadequate staff levels and limited security was available.

She also claimed that the telephone calls that she received from a client on the material day were distressing to her as a result of the nature of the abuse that she received.

The Plaintiff claimed that she had experienced panic attacks during the material period which she attributed to her employment and claimed that she had reported them to the Defendant.

The Defendant's case

The Defendant adduced evidence of regular performance reviews in which there was found to be no evidence that the Plaintiff was having difficulty coping with her duties. It was also established that the Plaintiff had not worked excessive hours and that her absences on sick leave were not prolonged, extended or frequent, or due to psychiatric problems.

The Decision

The Court did not accept that the Plaintiff had notified the Defendant of her panic attacks. Whilst it was found that the telephone calls taken by the Plaintiff did cause her distress, and were material to the development of a psychiatric condition, the Court also found that the Defendant had developed and implemented a policy to assist staff in dealing with aggressive or abusive calls. The policy was considered to be a reasonable response taken by the Defendant to a problem of which it was aware. Therefore, the Court held that the Defendant had not breached the duty it owed to the Plaintiff and her claim was dismissed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Kott Gunning is a proud member of