Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Naidu - Facts

Employment of the Plaintiff (Mr. Naidu)

• Mr. Naidu was employed as a security guard by ISS Security Pty Ltd.
• His services were provided to Nationwide News Pty Ltd under a contract between ISS Security and Nationwide News.

Position and Role of Chaloner

• Mr. Chaloner was the Fire and Safety Officer at Nationwide News Pty Ltd.
• He was Mr. Naidu’s direct supervisor and controlled his daily work.
• He had significant influence over the contract between ISS Security and Nationwide News.

Chaloner’s Conduct Toward the Plaintiff

• Over a period of several years, Chaloner subjected Mr. Naidu to bullying, harassment, and racial abuse.
• The conduct was described as brutal, demeaning, and unrelenting.

Exploitation for Personal Gain

• Chaloner forced Naidu to work on his private house on weekends and even during work hours.
• Initially, he deceived Naidu by pretending to need to discuss work matters, but then made him perform physical labor, such as mixing cement and pushing wheelbarrows.
• He justified this by falsely claiming he had received approval from a superior for Naidu to work for him.
• If Naidu refused, Chaloner abused him, threatened him with job loss, and even physical violence​

Extreme Working Hours and Unfair Demands

• Naidu was officially rostered from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, but typically worked until 10:00 or 11:00 PM.
• He was never paid for his overtime and also had to work 12-hour shifts on Sundays.
• His long work hours led to extreme exhaustion, frequent crying, family conflicts, and eventually the breakdown of his marriage.

Threats and Intimidation

• Chaloner frequently threatened Naidu with job loss, stating that he would make sure Naidu never worked again in the security industry in New South Wales.
• He also made direct threats of physical violence, using phrases like "I will do you" and once punched a hole in a wall in front of Naidu, saying "this is what I'm going to do to you"
• He threw chairs and objects while making these threats.

Verbal Abuse and Public Humiliation

• Chaloner used racist and abusive language, referring to Naidu with extreme racial slurs.
• He frequently insulted Naidu's wife and degraded him in front of colleagues.​
• In one incident, he threw Naidu’s files on the floor and forced him to pick them up in front of others​.

Control Over Personal and Medical Needs

• Naidu was required to ask permission to use the toilet.
• After being hospitalized due to a motor vehicle accident, Chaloner demanded he return to work immediately, despite medical advice to the contrary.​

Forced Contact While on Leave

• When Naidu traveled to Fiji for his mother’s illness, Chaloner only allowed him three days off and refused an extension.
• While in Fiji, Naidu was forced to call Chaloner daily from a phone located 15km away​.
• When he returned, Chaloner immediately demanded that he work at his house.

This relentless abuse and manipulation ultimately led to Naidu’s psychiatric injury, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety.

Back to Top

Wilkinson v Downtown [1897] 2 QB 57

Facts of the Case

In this case, the defendant, Mr. Downton, as a practical joke, falsely told Mrs. Wilkinson that her husband had been involved in a serious accident, had broken both of his legs, and was lying injured at a hospital. Mrs. Wilkinson, believing this to be true, suffered severe shock, leading to physical symptoms such as vomiting, nervousness, and other health issues.

Key legal Issues

The key question before the court was whether intentional infliction of emotional distress could be considered a tort, even though there was no physical harm or direct physical contact.

Court's Decision

Justice Wright ruled in favor of Mrs. Wilkinson, establishing that a person who willfully commits an act calculated to cause harm (mental or physical), and in fact causes such harm, can be held liable in tort. The court held that the defendant’s statement was intended to cause emotional distress and resulted in actual harm.

Legal Principles Established

• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): This case laid the foundation for the tort of intentional infliction of psychiatric harm, which was later developed in common law.
• The court recognized that psychological harm could be actionable in tort, even in the absence of physical contact or injury.

Significance

Wilkinson v Downton is one of the earliest cases to recognize psychological injury as a legitimate claim in tort law.

Back to Top

Bunyan v Jordan (1937) 57 CLR 1

Facts of the Case

• The plaintiff (Bunyan) sued the defendant (Jordan), claiming that the defendant’s actions had caused psychiatric harm.
• The claim revolved around intentional infliction of mental distress, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had caused them emotional and psychological suffering.
• The case examined whether psychological injury without physical harm could be legally recognized.

Key legal Issues

• Did the defendant’s conduct amount to an intentional tort?
• Could mental harm alone be sufficient for legal liability in tort?
• Was foreseeability of psychological injury a factor in determining liability?

Court's Decision

• The High Court of Australia held that intentional infliction of psychiatric harm can be actionable in tort.
• The judgment followed the legal principles established in Wilkinson v Downton [1897], which recognized that deliberate actions intended to cause mental harm could result in liability.
• The court emphasized that the defendant must have intended to cause harm or have acted with reckless disregard for the consequences.

Legal Principles Established

• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Bunyan v Jordan reinforced that a person can be held liable for deliberately causing psychological harm, even without physical injury.
• Extension of Wilkinson v Downton: The case aligned with English law by recognizing psychological injury as a legitimate claim in Australian tort law.
• Foreseeability in Psychiatric Injury: The court discussed whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable, but focused more on intent and recklessness rather than simple negligence.

Significance

• This case is important in Australian tort law because it confirmed that psychiatric harm could be actionable even if no physical injury occurred.
• It set a precedent for future cases involving psychological harm, influencing later decisions such as Northern Territory v Mengel (1995).
• Bunyan v Jordan is often cited in intentional tort cases, particularly those involving harassment, bullying, and psychological abuse.

Back to Top