Secretary Department of Communities and Justice v Luiza Soulos

2026/00020973

TORTS (negligence) – the respondent was a caseworker employed by the appellant, the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice (the DCJ) – in the course of her employment, the respondent was assigned to a particular young person (YP) who, while the respondent was assigned to him, died from a drug overdose – after being informed of YP’s death, the respondent took a “couple of days off work” and attended approximately five psychologist sessions during work hours which were organised and paid for by the DCJ – the respondent otherwise returned to her normal work – around 2018, the DCJ agreed to become involved in an independent documentary (which came to be known as “The Department”) which focussed on the child protection work undertaken by the DCJ – on 10 October 2021, the respondent watched the documentary on the SBS television station – the documentary included footage of a meeting of a DCJ Serious Case Review Panel in which the Review Panel discussed YP’s case and death – it was common ground that no one had contacted the respondent about the content of the documentary – the respondent commenced proceedings against the appellant for negligence, alleging that she suffered a traumatic psychological injury as a result of watching the documentary in circumstances where she recognised YP as the young person being discussed, and saw the comments of the Review Panel as blaming her or at least implicating her with blame for his death – the appellant accepted that the respondent suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of watching the documentary and that it owed the respondent an employer’s duty of care, but contended that the risk of the injury suffered by the respondent was beyond the scope of that duty and, in any event, the risk of injury was not foreseeable – the primary judge determined that the correct question for determining whether the appellant’s duty of care was engaged was whether the psychiatric injury to the respondent was reasonably foreseeable – the primary judge held that the risk of psychiatric injury suffered by the respondent was foreseeable in the circumstances and that the appellant had breached its duty of care to the respondent by failing to take certain precautions which would have protected the respondent – the primary judge awarded the respondent damages in the amount of $1,389,457.74, with the appellant entitled to deduct from that amount any workers compensation payments already made to the respondent in respect of the injury – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the risk of psychiatric harm was foreseeable.

Soulos v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (Family and Community Service) [2025] NSWDC 548