Optus Administration Pty Limited v Glenn Wright by his tutor James Stuart Wright [2017] NSWCA 21

Optus Administration Pty Limited v Glenn Wright by his tutor James Stuart Wright [2017] NSWCA 21

Optus did not owe Mr Wright a duty of care with respect to mental harm because there was no basis to find that it was reasonably foreseeable by Optus, on the available knowledge of its employees, that Mr George might attempt to murder or violently assault Mr Wright in such a manner as to cause a recognised psychiatric illness in a person of normal fortitude. The aggregation of knowledge across multiple employees was not permitted to establish corporate foreseeability or negligence, and no individual employee was found negligent. Thus, Optus was not directly or vicariously liable to Mr Wright for the psychiatric injury suffered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original orders (except the order setting aside prior orders) set aside; judgment for first defendant (Optus); amended statement of claim dismissed; cross-claims dismissed; costs to appellant (Optus); certificate granted under Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'mental Harm' 'psychiatric Injury' 'vicarious Liability' 'foreseeability' 'employer Liability' 'duty to Protect Against Third Party Criminal Acts']
['torts' 'negligence'] ['duty of Care' 'mental Harm' 'psychiatric Injury' 'vicarious Liability' 'foreseeability' 'employer Liability' 'duty to Protect Against Third Party Criminal Acts']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Optus owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, Mr Wright, not to cause him mental harm' 'Whether the foreseeability requirement in s 32 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) was satisfied' 'Whether Optus breached any duty it owed' 'Whether Optus was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees' 'Assessment and quantification of damages']

Ratio Decidendi

Optus did not owe Mr Wright a duty of care with respect to mental harm because there was no basis to find that it was reasonably foreseeable by Optus, on the available knowledge of its employees, that Mr George might attempt to murder or violently assault Mr Wright in such a manner as to cause a recognised psychiatric illness in a person of normal fortitude. The aggregation of knowledge across multiple employees was not permitted to establish corporate foreseeability or negligence, and no individual employee was found negligent. Thus, Optus was not directly or vicariously liable to Mr Wright for the psychiatric injury suffered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original orders (except the order setting aside prior orders) set aside; judgment for first defendant (Optus); amended statement of claim dismissed; cross-claims dismissed; costs to appellant (Optus); certificate granted under Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal and set aside the orders made in the Common Law Division on 20 March 2015, other than the order setting aside orders pronounced on 6 March 2015.' 'Give judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff and otherwise dismiss the amended statement of claim filed 24 July 2012.' 'Dismiss the...