No worries? Employers' duty of care for negligently inflicted stress

Abstract

In Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd, the High Court of Australia found that an employer did not owe a duty of care in negligence to an employee not to inflict a stress-related psychiatric injury on her. In reaching this conclusion, the High Court expressly rejected the straightforward application of the principles enunciated by Hale LJ in the recent, influential English Court of Appeal decision, Hatton v Sutherland. Instead, it accepted the invitation issued by Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in the appeal from Hatton v Sutherland, Barber v Somerset County Council, to consider the implications of the terms of an employment contract, inter alia, on the existence and content of any such duty of care. The High Court found that to recognise the duty of care claimed by Koehler would subvert or conflict with the terms of the employee’s employment contract.