Plaintiff v Defendant

Plaintiff v Defendant - [2014] VSC 626 - VSC 2014 case summary — Zoe

[273]

The Worksafe Victoria Guidance Note,[190] to which I have already referred, provides a definition of workplace bullying in these terms:

Workplace bullying is repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed toward an employee, or group of employees, that creates a risk to health and safety. Within this definition 'unreasonable behaviour' means behaviour that a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would expect to victimise, humiliate, undermine or threaten; 'behaviour' includes actions of individuals or a group, and may involve using a system of work as a means of victimising, humiliating, undermining or threatening; 'risk to health and safety' includes risk to the mental or physical health of the employee.

This definition recognises the relationship between conduct and the risk to health and safety. In the present circumstances I am concerned with that relationship in the context of risk of a psychiatric or psychological injury.

In Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey, Windeyer J observed that, 'It is however today a known medical fact that severe emotional distress can be the starting point of a lasting disorder of mind or body, some form of psychoneurosis or a psychosomatic illness. For that, if it be the result of a tortious act, damages may be had'. As Sheller JA observed in O'Leary v Oolong Aboriginal Corporation Inc, cases in the ensuing four decades since Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey 'demonstrate judicial recognition that the medical profession's view of the aetiology of such disorders has been accepted by the lay world'.

The definition provided in the guidance note emphasises relevant features of that aetiology. An established pattern of behaviour is significant, as its persistent nature creates the foreseeable risk to health. The subject behaviours, under the rubric of bullying, have the characteristic of victimising, humiliating, undermining or threatening the victim and the definition requires that a reasonable person would expect the relevant behaviour in all of the circumstances to have that effect. The essential characteristics of behaviour that may create a risk to the mental or physical health of an employee are that it is both repeated and unreasonable.

[584]

When liability has been established and a common law court has to assess damages, its approach to events that allegedly would have occurred, but cannot now occur, or that allegedly might occur, is different from its approach to events which allegedly have occurred. A common law court determines on the balance of probabilities whether an event has occurred. If the probability of the event having occurred is greater than it not having occurred, the occurrence of the event is treated as certain; if the probability of it having occurred is less than it not having occurred, it is treated as not having occurred. Hence, in respect of events which have or have not occurred, damages are assessed on an all or nothing approach. But in the case of an event which it is alleged would or would not have occurred, or might or might not yet occur, the approach of the court is different. The future may be predicted and the hypothetical may be conjectured. But questions as to the future or hypothetical effect of physical injury or degeneration are not commonly susceptible of scientific demonstration or proof. If the law is to take account of future or hypothetical events in assessing damages, it can only do so in terms of the degree of probability of those events occurring. The probability may be very high - 99.9 per cent - or very low - 0.1 per cent. But unless the chance is so low as to be regarded as speculative - say less than 1 per cent - or so high as to be practically certain - say over 99 per cent - the court will take that chance into account in assessing the damages. Where proof is necessarily unattainable, it would be unfair to treat as certain a prediction which has a 51 per cent probability of occurring, but to ignore altogether a prediction which has a 49 per cent probability of occurring. Thus, the court assesses the degree of probability that an event would have occurred, or might occur, and adjusts its award of damages to reflect the degree of probability. The adjustment may increase or decrease the amount of damages otherwise to be awarded. The approach is the same whether it is alleged that the event would have occurred before or might occur after the assessment of damages takes place.[393]

[590]

What was said in Watts v Rake and Purkess v Crittenden now has to be qualified by these principles (cf Commonwealth of Australia v Elliott) Malec has an important bearing, for example, on the way in which a court must determine whether a defendant has discharged the 'disentangling' evidentiary burden on it of showing that part of the plaintiff's condition was traceable to causes other than the accident and that, had there been no accident, the plaintiff would have suffered disability from his pre-existing condition.

Where a defendant alleges that the plaintiff suffered from a pre-existing condition, the evidential onus as explained in Watts v Rake and Purkess v Crittenden remains on the defendant and must be discharged by it. Nevertheless, to the extent that the issues involve hypothetical situations of the past, future effects of physical injury or degeneration, and the chance of future or hypothetical events occurring, the exercise of 'disentanglement' discussed in those cases is more easily achieved. That is because the court is required to evaluate possibilities in these situations - not proof on a balance of probabilities.

Without intending to give an exhaustive list of possibilities, it may be that, had the defendant's negligent act not occurred, a pre-existing condition might have given rise to the possibility that the plaintiff's enjoyment of life and ability to work would have been reduced and to a susceptibility to further injury; in addition, other causes entirely unrelated to the defendant's negligent act might have contributed to the plaintiff's ultimate condition.

Appropriate allowances must be made for these contingencies. A proper assessment of damages requires the making of a judgment as to the economic and other consequences which might have been caused by a worsening of a pre-existing condition, had the plaintiff not been injured by the defendant's negligence. A pre-existing condition proved to have possible ongoing harmful consequences (capable of reasonable definition) to the plaintiff, even without any negligent conduct on the part of the defendant, cannot be disregarded in arriving at proper compensation.

As was pointed out in Newell v Lucas, the court must determine whether a comparison may be made between the plaintiff's condition prior to the injuries sustained by the defendant's negligence (including the plaintiff's economic and other prospects in that condition) and the plaintiff's condition and prospects after the injuries. Nothing in Watts v Rake and Purkess v Crittenden precludes the judge from carrying out this exercise.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (826 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (20)