- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in India
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Aerospace & Defence and Automotive industries
The Queensland Supreme Court has found that that a school did not breach the duty of care owed to an employee by failing to eject an aggrieved parent, by failing to activate a lockdown or by failing to forewarn the employee via telephone of the parent’s presence.
In issue
- The non-delegable duty of an employer, whether the employer took reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the employee and whether there was a sufficient causal link between a breach of duty by the employer and the claimed psychiatric injury.
The background
The plaintiff was a secondary school teacher who had been the subject of allegations by two female students regarding unwanted physical contact. One of the student’s parents became aware of the allegations and attended a meeting with the principal before school to discuss their concerns. At that time, the plaintiff had not been informed of the allegations against her.
The student’s father was dissatisfied with the meeting and decided to confront the plaintiff. He proceeded quickly to a staff room where he became verbally aggressive and banged on the door. The male principal, two male colleagues and the school-based QPS officer all reached the staff room shortly after. Before they arrived, the father spoke to a female teacher about the plaintiff. The female teacher retreated into the staff room (via another door) and warned the plaintiff. The plaintiff and two colleagues secured themselves in an internal office and the father was moved on without direct contact with the plaintiff or any physical altercation. Sometime later, the plaintiff was informed of the allegations against her.
The plaintiff sued the employer for damages for a psychiatric injury attributed to, amongst other things, the events involving the father. The plaintiff alleged that the employer failed to take reasonable precautions to protect her from the risk of injury. In particular, it was alleged that the principal failed to use physical force to restrain the father, failed to activate a school lockdown and failed to forewarn the plaintiff via telephone about the father’s presence.
The decision at trial
Considering s 305B of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA), the Court found that no reasonable person would have taken the precaution of using physical force to eject the father or activating a school lockdown.
In reaching those conclusions, the Court considered:
- the presence of the QPS officer (whom it considered best placed to determine if physical force was appropriate), and that the father did not make physical contact with any of the men preventing his entry to the staff room, and
- that the purpose of a lockdown is to ensure the safety of students and staff. Given the time of day, before school, the Court found that a lockdown would have increased the risk to the plaintiff and other staff as they would have been required to locate students and secure them within classrooms.
With respect to the expectation that the principal should have forewarned the plaintiff by telephone, the Court found that was not reasonably practicable in circumstances where it took only 1 – 2 minutes for the father to reach the staff room. The Court was not satisfied that contacting the plaintiff by telephone would have prevented her from being subjected to the sudden shock of the incident or suffering significant distress. Rather, the Court took the view that the principal’s response was the response a reasonable person in that position would have taken. On that basis, the plaintiff failed to prove a breach of duty of care by the employer.
While not required to do so, the Court also considered both the factual causation and scope of liability for each of the alleged failures by the employer. On the balance of probabilities, causation was not established in relation to any of the alleged failures. In its findings, the Court considered the size, age and nature of the principal when considering the appropriateness of his personal use of force and the likelihood he would have succeeded in physically ejecting the father.
Implications for you
This case reinforces that foreseeability alone is not sufficient to establish a breach of s 305B of the WCRA. The plaintiff must establish the reasonableness and availability of a precaution as well as how it would have prevented the injury.
The case also highlights the Court’s approach to urgent decision making and the subjective appropriateness and reasonableness of the use of physical force and school lockdowns in schools that have policies and procedures in place which allow for both precautions.
Frazer v State of Queensland [2026] QSC 82
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]