Matters in the Media

Over $1 Million After Being Overworked and Blamed

Ackers v Cairns Regional Council

A council payroll manager was worked into the ground during a staffing crisis, then blamed for every mistake the unit made. The Supreme Court found his employer had caused his major depressive illness.

If your employer knew you were struggling and did nothing — or worse, made things harder — this case has something to say about your rights.

Get Free Advice → 📞 0410 901 831

$1M+

Total damages awarded

Distinct breaches found against the employer

14 weeks

Of sustained overwork before any action was taken

The Case

Ackers v Cairns Regional Council

The plaintiff was hired by Cairns Regional Council in September 2014 to overhaul and supervise a badly inefficient payroll unit that required large amounts of manual data input. His early performance reviews were very positive, despite having a longstanding mental health history.

In March 2015, three experienced payroll staff went on prolonged leave. For the next 14 weeks, the plaintiff worked around 12 extra hours per week, including two all-nighters, just to keep Council's payroll functioning. During this time Council could see he was under enormous strain, showing visible signs of distress including uncontrollable tremors and emotionality.

Rather than address the staffing problem, Council issued a written warning following a union complaint, conducted an audit that blamed the plaintiff for virtually all of the unit's mistakes while ignoring the obvious understaffing, and then placed him on a Performance Improvement Action Plan. By September 2015 he had suffered a major depressive illness and ceased work.

Read the full judgment on Queensland Judgements

Don't feel like reading? Watch our breakdown on TikTok

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court found that psychiatric injury only became reasonably foreseeable in July 2015, when the plaintiff disclosed his depression and antidepressant use to his supervisor. Prior to that, the extra hours and visible distress alone were not enough — courts give employers some leeway where an employee hasn't disclosed a mental health condition.

But once that disclosure was made, Council's response was inadequate on two fronts. It failed to inject replacement staff to relieve the plaintiff's load, and it pursued a formal performance management process without ever asking whether the workload and understaffing might be contributing to the performance issues it was trying to address.

The court found it was the Performance Improvement Action Plan — imposed while Council knew the plaintiff was suffering under sustained understaffing — that caused his major depressive illness. Blaming the employee for a systemic problem they created, without following their own procedures, was the decisive breach.

How it unfolded

The court's findings on foreseeability depended heavily on exactly when Council knew what. This timeline shows why the July disclosure was the turning point.

Sep
14

September 2014

Hired to fix a broken payroll unit

The plaintiff joins Cairns Regional Council to overhaul its inefficient, manual-input-heavy payroll unit. Early performance reviews are positive.

Mar
15

March 2015

Three experienced staff go on prolonged leave

The unit loses its experienced staff simultaneously. The plaintiff begins working approximately 12 extra hours per week to keep payroll running, including two all-nighters over the following 14 weeks.

Jul
15

July 2015 — Foreseeability crystallises

Plaintiff discloses depression to his supervisor

The plaintiff tells his supervisor he suffers from depression and is on antidepressants. The court found this was the moment psychiatric injury became reasonably foreseeable. Council's duty to act was now engaged.

Aug
15

August 2015

Audit blames plaintiff; Performance Improvement Plan imposed

Council's audit of payroll errors attributes virtually all mistakes to the plaintiff, with no mention of sustained understaffing. The plaintiff is placed on a Performance Improvement Action Plan that similarly ignores the underlying staffing problem.

Sep
15

September 2015

Major depressive illness — plaintiff ceases work

The plaintiff suffers a major depressive illness and is unable to continue working. The court later finds the imposition and pursuit of the PIAP caused this injury.

Two breaches the court found against Council

Once psychiatric injury became foreseeable in July, Council had a duty to act. It failed in two distinct ways.

Failure to properly staff the payroll unit

From July onwards, it would have been reasonable for Council to train up and inject short-term replacement staff to relieve the plaintiff's load. The prolonged understaffing was the root cause of the problem — and Council knew it. Choosing not to address it after the plaintiff's disclosure was a breach of its duty of care.

Failure to follow its own performance management procedures

Council's own administrative procedures required supervisors to consider whether there were factors preventing an employee from performing before moving into formal performance management. Council ignored this entirely. With full knowledge of the extraordinary stress the plaintiff was under due to prolonged understaffing, it imposed and pursued a PIAP that blamed him personally for a systemic failure it had created. The court found this caused his major depressive illness.

The legal principles that decided this case

Psychiatric injury claims at work carry extra considerations that don't apply to physical injury cases.

Employers owe a duty to protect against psychiatric injury

The same duty of care that covers physical harm applies to psychiatric harm. Employers must take reasonable precautions against significant and reasonably foreseeable risks of psychological injury in the workplace.

Foreseeability requires both unreasonable work AND visible distress

Courts won't make psychiatric injury foreseeable from overwork alone. There must be something unreasonable about the nature and extent of the employment, AND clear signs of psychological distress coming from the worker. Both elements are needed.

Disclosure of a mental health condition is a turning point

Once an employee discloses a mental health condition, an employer can no longer shelter behind privacy as a reason for inaction. From that point, the risk of psychiatric injury is known and the duty to take precautions is actively engaged.

Employers cannot blame employees for systemic failures they created

Using formal performance management to scapegoat an employee for problems caused by the employer's own failure to staff adequately — particularly when the employer knows the employee is already struggling — can itself constitute the breach that causes the injury.

Alex's Take

What makes this case important is the performance management piece. Councils and large employers often reach for the PIAP when things go wrong in a unit. What this decision says is that if you do that while knowing the employee is struggling under conditions you created and haven't fixed, you are not managing performance — you are causing harm.

The disclosure in July is the other thing worth noting. Before that, Council had some cover. After it, they had none. If you are an employee dealing with a mental health condition and your working conditions are contributing to it, telling your employer in writing matters enormously — both practically and legally.

Alex Bassingthwaighte

Founder & Principal, Claimwise

Over $1 Million After Being Overworked and Blamed

Ackers v Cairns Regional Council

What the Court Decided

How it unfolded

Hired to fix a broken payroll unit

Three experienced staff go on prolonged leave

Plaintiff discloses depression to his supervisor

Audit blames plaintiff; Performance Improvement Plan imposed

Major depressive illness — plaintiff ceases work

Two breaches the court found against Council

Failure to properly staff the payroll unit

Failure to follow its own performance management procedures

The legal principles that decided this case

Employers owe a duty to protect against psychiatric injury

Foreseeability requires both unreasonable work AND visible distress

Disclosure of a mental health condition is a turning point

Employers cannot blame employees for systemic failures they created

Tell us what happened at work.

Make an Enquiry