Australia, Sept. 6 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 6:

1. The plaintiff brings a claim in negligence for damages in respect of psychiatric injury allegedly caused as a result of bullying and harassment in the course of his employment as a police officer.

2. As the defendant correctly points out, strictly speaking, the office held by the plaintiff does not make him the defendant's employee as such (see State of New South Wales v Briggs (2016) 95 NSWLR 467; [2016] NSWCA 344 at [44]). However, the defendant admits that the plaintiff was at all times in a position analogous to that of an employee and accepts it owed him a duty of care. It is common ground that the plaintiff's claim is regulated by Pt 5 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). Accordingly, damages are limited to economic loss only.

3. The defendant denies breach of duty, or alternatively, denies any causal connection between breach and damage. Beyond that, the defendant disputes the quantum of the plaintiff's damages. While pleaded, defences of failure to mitigate and contributory negligence were not pressed in the running of the case.

4. The defendant also raised a defence under s 151D of the Workers Compensation Act, namely, that the proceedings had been commenced more than three years after the alleged date of injury without the Court's leave. That was dealt with as a preliminary matter, and in a separate judgment at the commencement of the trial I determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a grant of leave under s 151D, nunc pro tunc.

The Evidence

5. To understand the issues thrown up in this case, it is necessary to consider the factual evidence as it unfolded before me. What follows is not an exhaustive account of that evidence but rather a summary of some of the more significant matters informing the disposition of the plaintiff's claim.

The Plaintiff's Evidence in Chief

6. The plaintiff gave evidence over three days, punctuated by breaks due to his expressed difficulty in coping. I make the observation that the plaintiff impressed me as a genuine and straightforward witness, and I formed the view that he did his best to answer questions honestly and was struggling with his emotions at times.

7. The plaintiff was born in 1979. After finishing high school he obtained a Bachelor of Computer Science and then in 2002 joined the NSW Police Force, commencing general duties as a Probationary Constable in May 2003. He undertook numerous roles over the years that followed, eventually being promoted to the rank of Detective Constable in 2007 and Detective Senior Constable in 2008. In 2009 the plaintiff commenced working with the Terrorism Investigation Squad before being promoted to the rank of Detective Sergeant.

8. There was no issue that between 2002 and 2009 the plaintiff was exposed to numerous distressing events in the course of his work as a police officer performing general duties.

9. In December 2012 the plaintiff injured his lower back when arresting a suspect. This led to time off work, surgery and ongoing treatment, with the plaintiff being placed on restricted duties, which predominantly reflected the fact that he was not able to carry a gun.

10. In February 2014 the plaintiff, by then a Detective Sergeant, commenced working with the Professional Standards Command (PSC). At that time the plaintiff was still having treatment for his lower back and was taking part in a pain management programme being run by Dr Wood. He was also seeing a back specialist, Dr Bentivoglio. The plaintiff described taking pain medication and sometimes having cortisone injections. He was also participating in a return-to-work programme aimed at getting him back to unrestricted duties.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1987c872ac81bb318af90d6c)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.