Potter v Gympie Regional Council
[2022] QSC 9 · Brown J
Mr Potter had worked for the Gympie Regional Council since 2003 and by 2014 was a manager in the Local Laws team. After a 2013 staff survey raised concerns about his management, he was told in mid-2014 that his performance would be managed. About three weeks later, following a complaint from a staff member, the Council suspended him on full pay while an external lawyer investigated. The investigator largely cleared him of serious misconduct but made some adverse findings about his judgment. By the time he was told the outcome in January 2015, Mr Potter had developed a significant psychiatric condition and never returned to work. He sued the Council in negligence, claiming the way it handled the performance management, suspension and investigation caused his psychiatric injury. The court dismissed his claim, finding the Council did not owe or breach a relevant duty of care and that, in any event, his injury would have occurred regardless. The judge accepted he suffered a chronic adjustment disorder but found the Council was not legally responsible.
The medical evidence on impairment was also sharply divided. Dr Byth assessed Mr Potter at 47% whole person impairment, whereas Dr Jetnikoff assessed him at 7%. Brown J preferred Dr Jetnikoff’s opinion. Her Honour considered Dr Byth’s assessment to be inconsistent with Mr Potter’s demonstrated functioning, including his ability to obtain a personal training qualification, upgrade his referee accreditation, referee and coach football, travel, drive, and maintain his marriage. Dr Jetnikoff’s evidence was that an impairment of 47% would usually reflect a person requiring regular, if not continuous, hospitalisation, which did not accord with the facts. The judge found that Dr Byth’s opinion depended too heavily on the history given by Mr and Mrs Potter, which overstated his level of dysfunction, whereas Dr Jetnikoff’s lower assessment better matched the objective evidence.
Incident & injury
Psychiatric injury alleged to arise from workplace performance management, suspension pending investigation of misconduct allegations, and failure to provide adequate support during investigation
- Body regions
- Psychiatric
- Diagnoses
- Chronic adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, Major depressive disorder (contested)
- Incident date
- 21 July 2014
- Location
- Gympie
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 10 February 2022
- Claim type
- WCRA Common Law
- Proceeding
- Trial
- Plaintiff outcome
- Unsuccessful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- 43
- Occupation
- Coordinator of Local Laws, Gympie Regional Council Manager
- Liability
- Disputed
- ISV assessed
- 9
- Whole Person Impairment
- 7%
- Total damages
- $0
Outcome
Claim dismissed. The court found that the earliest date on which a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury to the plaintiff arose was 14 August 2014, and to the extent any duty of care arose after that date, it was not breached or causative of the psychiatric injury. The court held that a duty of care did not extend to the decision to suspend (following Paige and Govier), and causation was not established in any event.
Defendant
1 Gympie Regional Council
Employer
- Judgment against this defendant
- $0
Key issues
Potter v Gympie Regional Council [2022] QSC 9
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.