·   · 71 posts
  •  · 3 friends

Did the Respondent fail to take reasonable measures in response to evident signs of psychiatric injury and did that that failure cause exacerbation of psychiatric injury?

Kozarov v Victoria [2022] HCA 12 (13 April 2022)


This appeal arises out of proceedings commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria for damages for the negligent failure of the respondent to prevent psychiatric injury to the appellant in the course of her employment with the respondent as a solicitor in the Specialist Sexual Offences Unit ("the SSOU") of the Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions ("the OPP").

In February 2012, the appellant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") resulting from vicarious trauma which she had suffered until then in the course of her employment. She was later also diagnosed with major depressive disorder which was found to be a corollary of the PTSD.

The trial judge (Jane Dixon J) held the respondent liable to the appellant in negligence and awarded damages in her favour. Her Honour found that the respondent had been placed on notice of a risk to the appellant's mental health by the end of August 2011 ("the notice finding"), such as to require the respondent to take steps by way of reasonable response which included offering her rotation out of the SSOU to work in another section of the OPP. Her Honour also found that, at the end of August 2011, the appellant would have accepted an offer of rotation out of the SSOU to work in another section of the OPP ("the rotation finding"), thereby avoiding the exacerbation of her PTSD that occurred between August 2011 and February 2012.

Upholding the notice finding but rejecting the rotation finding, the Court of Appeal (Beach and Kaye JJA and Macaulay A-JA) allowed the respondent's appeal.

In her appeal by special leave to this Court, the appellant sought to overturn the Court of Appeal's rejection of the rotation finding. For the following reasons, the Court of Appeal did not err in accepting the notice finding, but the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the rotation finding. Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.


In June 2009, the appellant joined the SSOU as a recently admitted solicitor, in a "VPS Grade 4" role. The appellant's work in the SSOU routinely involved interaction with survivors of trauma and exposure to their traumatic experiences including by attending court to instruct in sexual assault trials, meeting with child and adult alleged victims of sexual offences and their families, viewing explicit child pornography and preparing child complainants for cross-examination. From time to time, the appellant worked in a more senior "VPS Grade 5" role, in temporary "backfilled" positions within the SSOU.

In 2009 or 2010, the appellant attended a one-day training workshop at the OPP on the topic of "Understanding and working with victims of trauma" ("the Benstead workshop"). The workshop became a forum for intense discussions about the emotional effects of work in the SSOU. On that occasion, the appellant asserted that there was not enough being done to assist SSOU staff, and she gave examples of how her work was affecting her as a mother.

The appellant became increasingly vocal at staff meetings from late 2010 onwards about how work was affecting her daily life, including describing feelings of paranoia about leaving her children with other people, including at activities and with school teachers, her refusal to allow her son to be an altar boy, and dreaming of her children being the complainants in her matters.

By 2011, the appellant was known by the manager of the SSOU, Mr Brown, and the deputy manager of the SSOU, Ms Robinson, to be a dedicated, hard-working, ambitious and loyal employee of the OPP. Mr Brown and Ms Robinson also knew that the appellant had upwards of 25 files, when the desirable file load was no more than 20; that she had been experiencing physical health ailments, including the need to take time off for medical appointments from time to time; and that she was a mother of young children and a sole parent.

Events between April and August 2011

On 18 April 2011, SSOU staff including the appellant signed a memorandum addressed to Mr Brown and Ms Robinson concerning staff wellbeing ("the staff memorandum"). The staff memorandum followed an after-hours meeting in the absence of management at which significant concerns about wellbeing were discussed. The staff memorandum recorded that the SSOU solicitors were experiencing increasing court commitments; that solicitors were working long hours and taking work home on weeknights and on weekends; and that "solicitors ... reportedly experienced a marked increase in the symptoms associated with stress". The memorandum included a lengthy list of stress-related symptoms said to be experienced by SSOU solicitors, as well as a list of "unhealthy behaviour/lifestyle choices" that solicitors reported themselves to have made as a result of the stress-related symptoms.

The trial judge found that the appellant's signature on the staff memorandum "notified the [respondent] of ongoing health and well-being impacts" experienced by SSOU staff, including the appellant]. This finding was supported by expert evidence that the staff memorandum should have alerted the SSOU's managers to the probability that SSOU staff members were suffering from symptoms of PTSD.

Her Honour considered that the staff memorandum provided the context in which subsequent signs of risk attaching to the appellant were to be viewed and assessed. Her Honour found that "the [appellant's] demeanour, presentation and conduct both before and after the memo combined to show an accretion of signs that she was being adversely affected by her work", culminating in "the presentation of a staff member who, by around the end of August 2011, needed active intervention and proper supervision to ensure that she was not damaged by her work".

Events from September 2011

From 29 August 2011 until the end of December 2011, the appellant continued to deal with serious sexual offences in the SSOU and, in November 2011, she accepted a promotion to a permanent VPS Grade 5 role in the SSOU. She took annual leave and long service leave for the whole of January 2012, as had been arranged in October 2011. On 31 January 2012, the appellant sought an extension of her leave from 7 February 2012 (when the appellant had been due to return to work) to 10 February 2012. On 9 February 2012, the appellant requested that she be moved out of the SSOU. Thereafter, there were attempts to return the appellant to work at the OPP in different areas until 20 April 2012. Those attempts were unsuccessful and, consequently, the appellant's employment was terminated.


Was the Respondent liable from its failure to take reasonable measures in response to "evident signs" of the Appellant's work-related PTSD?

Notice finding

In pursuing its Notice of Contention, the respondent did not seek to challenge the practice of this Court not to disturb concurrent findings of fact "in the absence of special reasons such as plain injustice or clear error"[24]. In the result, the respondent failed to establish error or injustice of any kind on the part of the trial judge or the Court of Appeal in making and maintaining the notice finding.

The trial judge found that "viewed prospectively", by the end of August 2011, a reasonable person in the position of the respondent "would have adverted to the evident signs regarding the [appellant] and observed that she was failing to cope with her allocated work and that her mental health was at risk". The signs relevantly included: (1) the appellant's signature to the staff memorandum, which stated staff complaints about health impacts, including psychologically based impacts, caused by the SSOU's work; (2) the appellant's statements at the Benstead workshop, staff meetings and the Carfi session about her hypervigilance and abnormally overprotective parenting practices as a result of her work; (3) the appellant's excessive file load, her case mix, which involved a high proportion of child complainant cases, and her patterns of working late and on weekends and public holidays; (4) the appellant's observable emotional involvement in some cases, such as using a nickname for her "favourite" child complainant; (5) the allocation to the appellant of the Lim matter, a particularly traumatic matter, in the face of her resistance to taking it because she was struggling with her existing case load; (6) the appellant's sudden departure from work on 12 August 2011, during the Lim trial, after an episode of dizziness, and her subsequent time away from work until 29 August 2011; (7) the attempted suicide of one of the child complainants in the Lim case, about which the appellant was informed while she was on leave; (8) the observation of Mr Brown (which he told the appellant was shared by others) that the appellant was not coping with the demands of her work; and (9) the appellant's "highly emotive and agitated reaction" to her disagreement with Mr Brown on 29 August 2011.

Rotation finding

As it was conducting an appeal by way of rehearing, the Court of Appeal was required to conduct a "real review" of the evidence given at first instance and of the trial judge's reasons for judgment to determine whether the trial judge erred in fact or law. The appellant did not dispute that the Court of Appeal was in as good a position as the trial judge to decide on the proper inference to be drawn about the appellant's probable conduct from the available evidence, giving appropriate respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge.

There is some ambiguity in the trial judge's reasons as to whether her Honour considered that, in the appellant's case, the only option that would have avoided the exacerbation of her PTSD between August 2011 and February 2012 was rotation out of the SSOU. However, the trial judge ultimately reached the conclusion that work-related screening of the appellant at the end of August 2011 "would have revealed that the [appellant] needed to be rotated out of the SSOU because of the connection between her work and her symptoms at that time". The trial judge found that there was no good reason why the appellant could not have been rotated to another part of the OPP that did not manage sexual offences[34].

The trial judge proceeded on the basis that the appellant's rotation from the SSOU required her cooperation, and the Court of Appeal observed that there was no suggestion that the respondent could have compelled the appellant to move to another unit that did not involve work relating to sex offences. Thus, the appellant was required to prove on the balance of probabilities that, if offered rotation out of the SSOU, she would have accepted it. The trial judge found that the appellant discharged this burden, having regard to the appellant's recognition of her need for professional psychological help in August 2011 and her cooperation with exploring alternative roles at the OPP after 9 February 2012.

The Court of Appeal noted that the appellant did not give evidence that she would have agreed to rotation out of the SSOU at the end of August 2011. Their Honours stated that the circumstances of 9 February 2012 relied upon by the trial judge were very different from the circumstances of late August 2011. Their Honours referred to the appellant's strong reaction to Mr Brown's suggestion that she was not coping and the terms of her second email on 29 August 2011, placing particular reliance on the appellant's statement that she was "passionate about continuing [her] work in the [SSOU]". Their Honours also noted that the appellant was by then also seeking promotion in the SSOU and that, on 9 November 2011, she signed a contract for a permanent position there. On the basis of these matters, "having looked afresh at the evidence, and making due allowance for the advantage of the trial judge", the Court of Appeal formed the view that "it could not be concluded that the [appellant] proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the appropriate exercise of care by the [respondent] would have resulted in the [appellant] accepting a rotation out of the SSOU at any time between the end of August 2011 and February 2012".

The Court of Appeal erred in forming this view. The appellant's cooperative conduct in February 2012, which was with the benefit of insight about the harmful effect of the nature and intensity of her work upon her mental health, while not determinative, was relevant evidence in support of the rotation finding. Also relevant, and not adverted to by the Court of Appeal, was the expert evidence of Professor McFarlane, a psychiatrist, that a "significant majority" of people assessed by him and receiving appropriate advice, appropriately communicated, would accept that advice. The substance of this evidence was that it is more common than not for persons to heed medical advice given to them about the cause of a diagnosed serious illness and the means by which that cause could be either mitigated or removed. This was important evidence in support of the rotation finding.

The Court of Appeal also failed to advert to the inherent likelihood that a reasonable person advised of the risks of serious psychiatric injury might be expected, on the balance of probabilities, to accept advice to avoid those risks. It was inherently likely that the appellant, faced with advice as to the need to rotate out of SSOU in order to avoid an exacerbation of her PTSD, would have acted self-interestedly in accordance with the advice. In this regard, it is significant that the appellant gave extensive evidence at the trial and the trial judge rejected the respondent's attacks upon her credibility, did not accept that she was an unsatisfactory witness and found her evidence to be "generally coherent and credible". The Court of Appeal should have adverted to the real possibility that the appellant's demeanour and credibility may have influenced the trial judge in making the rotation finding].

It is true that there was a body of material that tended against the rotation finding. This material included the appellant's commitment prior to February 2012 to the SSOU's work and the social importance of that work; the commitment of SSOU staff, including the appellant, to specialisation in sexual offence work with the accompanying inevitability of vicarious trauma and the limited opportunities for "time out"; the instances of the appellant's applications for promotion within the SSOU as further indication of her strong desire to do the traumatic work involved; and the appellant's apparent outrage at the possibility that Mr Brown thought that the appellant should no longer be in the SSOU. However, these factors were of relatively little weight in assessing the counterfactual, which involved a diagnosis of serious psychiatric illness and appropriate advice. On the whole of the evidence, the trial judge's rotation finding was the preferable one.


The appeal should be allowed with costs. The orders of the Court of Appeal should be set aside. In their place, it should be ordered that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs

0 0 0 0 0 0
Comments (0)
    SSL Certificates