What happened?
The plaintiff, a senior Council officer, suffered a psychiatric injury after a fabricated email falsely portraying her as racist and corrupt was tabled in Parliament. The email, created by third parties, was never authored or sent by the plaintiff. Despite being forewarned of its existence and the harm it could cause, the Council failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and disprove the email’s authenticity.
Why was the employer liable?
The Court held that the Council breached its duty to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable psychiatric injury to its employee. Crucially:
- The Council was forewarned of the email’s existence and its potential for reputational harm.
- It had the means to disprove the email’s authenticity, including access to its own email systems and metadata.
- It failed to follow through on promises to investigate and communicate its findings to key stakeholders.
- The Court found that had those steps been taken, the fabricated email would not have been tabled in Parliament.
Justice Henry concluded:
“The scope of Council’s duty required it to take reasonable steps to avoid the perpetuation of the content of the fabricated email in the public domain… including revealing the facts demonstrating the falsity of the fabricated email to Mrs Roberson and Mr Whittaker in a timely way.”
What are the legal lessons?
- Don’t limit duty of care to physical safety or “safe systems of work.” The Court cautioned against narrowly construing employer obligations and noted in some cases there is "there is no logical justification for limiting the scope of the employer's duty of care by reference to systemic workplace considerations".
- Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254 should not be used simplistically to deny liability for third-party conduct. The employer-employee relationship carries unique obligations.
- Investigations must be fit for purpose. The Council engaged a non-IT expert to assess the email’s authenticity, despite the technical nature of the issue.
- Communication is critical. The failure to communicate findings to stakeholders was a key factor in the Court’s finding of liability.
What now?
The decision remains within the appeal window. Whether Cook Shire Council will challenge the ruling is yet to be seen.
If your organisation is navigating complex workplace investigations or reputational risk, this case is a timely reminder: Duty of care doesn’t stop at the office door.
Contact us today if you have concerns about your workplace investigation processes.
