Matters in the Media

Bullied for 11 Days. Called HR in Tears. Told to Work It Out Herself.

Keegan v Sussan Corp

A highly regarded assistant store manager returned from maternity leave to find a new manager who made her life miserable. When she finally broke down and called HR, the company ignored its own bullying policy and did almost nothing. The District Court awarded her over $237,000.

This case is one of Queensland's clearest decisions on when a pattern of workplace bullying crosses the line into a compensable psychiatric injury claim — and why an employer's response to a complaint matters as much as the bullying itself.

Get Free Advice → 📞 0410 901 831

$237,000+

Total damages awarded

11 days

Duration of the bullying before the plaintiff broke down

Day 4

The pivot point — when foreseeability of psychiatric injury crystallised

The Case

Keegan v Sussan Corp

The plaintiff had worked as assistant store manager at Sussan's in Cairns for around six years. She was highly competent, enthusiastic, and well regarded. After returning from maternity leave, she found a new store manager in place.

Over 11 days, the plaintiff was bullied about the state of the store, the number of customers enrolled in a discount program, her handwriting, and matters she needed to know to do her job but was deliberately excluded from. She was also subjected to vague threats about performance standards. On day 4, after the store manager held a mop to her face about the floor being dirty, she called her business manager in tears and disclosed the truth about what was happening.

Rather than treating the complaint seriously and confidentially as its own bullying policy required, Sussan Corp had the business manager call the store manager and ask her to be "mindful" of her dealings with the plaintiff. Over the next seven days the plaintiff made two further calls to the business manager and was eventually told she had to work it out herself. She did not return to work and was later diagnosed with major depressive disorder.

Read the full judgment on Queensland Judgements

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

A pattern of minor events can become a serious risk

The defendant argued each individual incident was minor in isolation. The court rejected this framing. Taken together, the interactions represented a pattern of unreasonable and excessive behaviour by a manager toward an employee serious enough to signal a real risk of emotional distress. The cumulative effect was what mattered, not any single event.

On foreseeability, the court acknowledged that an assistant manager role naturally involves some degree of supervision and correction. But correction that is excessive or inappropriate — particularly when it forms a pattern — is different. And once the plaintiff called her business manager in tears on day 4, any ambiguity about whether a psychiatric injury was foreseeable evaporated.

The court was also pointed in its assessment of the defendant's response. Sussan Corp's own bullying policy required complaints to be treated seriously and confidentially. Instead, the business manager called the accused manager directly — the opposite of confidential — and did nothing meaningful. That failure both constituted the breach and made the harm worse by amplifying the plaintiff's isolation and vulnerability.

The Pivot Point in This Case

Day 4 — the phone call in tears

The court identified the plaintiff's call to her business manager on day 4 as the moment foreseeability of psychiatric injury crystallised. Before that call, the defendant had an inexperienced manager in place and no specific signals of distress from the plaintiff. After it, they had both. A reasonable employer receiving that call would have understood that if the problem wasn't properly addressed, it would have an adverse impact on the plaintiff. Everything that happened after day 4 — the inadequate response, the further seven days of conduct, the instruction to sort it out herself — flowed from a failure to act at that moment.

How Sussan Corp breached its duty of care

The breach was not just about allowing the bullying to continue. It was also about how the company's response to the complaint actively made things worse.

Allowing the pattern of bullying to continue unchecked

After the day 4 call put the defendant on notice, a reasonable employer would have intervened to stop the conduct. Instead, the business manager's call to the store manager — asking her to simply be "mindful" — was entirely inadequate. The bullying continued for a further seven days, including two more calls from the plaintiff that were ultimately dismissed.

Failing to follow its own bullying and harassment policy

Sussan Corp had a policy that required complaints to be treated seriously and confidentially. It did neither. Rather than investigating the complaint properly, it called the very person being complained about — breaching the confidentiality requirement — and took no meaningful action. Had the policy been followed, the bullying would have been identified, the manager disciplined, and the plaintiff supported. That outcome would have avoided the injury.

Exacerbating the plaintiff's isolation and vulnerability

The court found that Sussan Corp's failure to handle the complaint properly didn't just allow the harm to continue — it actively made it worse. Being told her complaint wasn't being taken seriously, that confidentiality had been breached, and that she had to resolve the situation herself deepened the plaintiff's isolation and increased her vulnerability. The response compounded the original injury.

The legal principles that decided this case

Workplace bullying claims face specific hurdles around foreseeability that general negligence claims don't. This case shows how courts work through them.

A pattern of minor events can constitute a significant risk

Courts don't assess each incident of bullying in isolation. Where individual events might each seem relatively minor, their cumulative effect — particularly if they form a consistent pattern of unreasonable treatment — can rise to the level of a significant risk of harm for the purposes of a negligence claim.

Foreseeability in bullying cases requires distress signals

Courts presume employees who take on a role are competent and not at risk of psychiatric injury from normal supervision. For foreseeability to arise in a bullying claim, plaintiffs generally need to show the conduct was excessive or inappropriate, and that they displayed evident signs of psychological distress in relation to it. A tearful call to management typically satisfies that second requirement.

An employer's own policies set the floor for what's reasonable

Where a company has a bullying and harassment policy, failure to follow it is powerful evidence of breach. The court doesn't have to determine what a hypothetical reasonable employer would have done — the defendant itself defined the standard, and failed to meet it. That's a significant advantage for plaintiffs in these cases.

A poor response to a complaint can itself be part of the harm

The duty of care in these cases isn't discharged by simply acknowledging a complaint. The response has to be adequate. Telling an employee to work it out herself, or taking action that deepens her isolation, can constitute a separate and compounding breach — and courts will consider the full consequences of that inadequate response when assessing damages.

Alex's Take

What I find particularly valuable about Keegan is how clearly it illustrates that the employer's response to a complaint is just as legally significant as the conduct being complained about. Sussan Corp didn't just fail to stop the bullying — their response actively made things worse. That's not just a moral failure, it's a legal one.

The "pivot point" concept is also worth internalising. Courts look for the moment when a reasonable employer should have known a psychiatric injury was on the cards. In this case it was the day 4 phone call. In your case it might be a formal complaint, a medical certificate, a tearful conversation with a manager, or an email expressing distress. Whatever it is, that moment matters — because everything the employer does or doesn't do after it is measured against a much higher standard.

If you're dealing with workplace bullying, document everything, and make your distress known to the employer in writing when it's safe to do so. Not because it makes you look weak — but because it starts the clock on what the employer was obligated to do about it.

Alex Bassingthwaighte

Founder & Principal, Claimwise

Bullied for 11 Days. Called HR in Tears. Told to Work It Out Herself.

Keegan v Sussan Corp

A pattern of minor events can become a serious risk

Day 4 — the phone call in tears

How Sussan Corp breached its duty of care

Allowing the pattern of bullying to continue unchecked

Failing to follow its own bullying and harassment policy

Exacerbating the plaintiff's isolation and vulnerability

The legal principles that decided this case

A pattern of minor events can constitute a significant risk

Foreseeability in bullying cases requires distress signals

An employer's own policies set the floor for what's reasonable

A poor response to a complaint can itself be part of the harm

Tell us what happened at work.

Make an Enquiry