Psychological Injury in the Workplace: What the Case of Soulos Means for Workers

In Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice v Soulos [2026] NSWCA 185, the NSW Court of Appeal upheld a damages award of $1.39 million to a DCJ caseworker who suffered a psychological injury after watching a short segment of a documentary that referred to the death of her former client. The facts were unusual, but the decision highlights a practical point for workers: psychological injury can arise from workplace-related communications or media, even where names are not used and even where the relevant content is brief.

Background of Case

Luiza Soulos was a caseworker employed by the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ). She had worked with a 14‑year‑old Aboriginal boy, referred to as YP, supporting him with practical day-to-day needs over several years.

YP died from an accidental overdose in May 2019. Ms Soulos took time off and attended DCJ-funded psychology sessions and later returned to her usual duties. Her work included sorting YP’s belongings, including his journal.

In September 2021, DCJ encouraged staff to watch The Department, a documentary about its child protection work, broadcast on SBS on 10 October 2021. Ms Soulos was not told beforehand that a short segment would discuss YP’s case. Neither YP nor Ms Soulos was named in the segment.

The segment included panel members discussing perceived failures, using language such as “we” and “us”, and it referred to suicidal ideation. It also included a reading from what was described as one of the young person’s suicide notes. Ms Soulos recognised the words as coming from YP’s journal, which she had read while sorting his belongings after his death.

Ms Soulos said the segment made her feel personally responsible for YP’s death. She attended work the next day, spoke with her supervisors about the documentary, and did not return to work. It was common ground in the proceedings that she suffered a genuine psychiatric injury that rendered her fully incapacitated for work.

Key Issues for Court to Consider

The appeal focused on reasonable foreseeability at common law, drawing on the test from Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd (2005) 222 CLR 44, which asks whether the risk of a recognisable psychiatric illness was “not far‑fetched or fanciful”.

The case was argued on a narrow basis. DCJ accepted that if it was reasonably foreseeable that Ms Soulos would identify YP as the person being discussed and perceive the segment as blaming her for YP’s death but did not admit foreseeability of psychiatric injury would follow.

Why did the Court find it was Foreseeable she would Identify the Client?

The Court held it was reasonably foreseeable Ms Soulos would identify YP, principally because the segment quoted from his journal. The quoted material was something she had read after his death, and it was also material that was available to the Department.

The Court also relied on internal, contemporaneous evidence from within DCJ after the broadcast. The day after the program aired, a manager emailed Ms Soulos and her manager proposing a debrief because YP’s case had been “discussed as part of the documentary.” The Court also referred to evidence that senior staff independently “pieced together” that the segment concerned YP. That evidence supported the conclusion that people with knowledge of the case could and did identify the young person from the segment, which in turn supported the conclusion that it was reasonably foreseeable Ms Soulos would do the same.

Why did the Court find it was Foreseeable she would Feel Blamed?

DCJ argued that the panel’s “we” and “us” language referred only to the organisation or to the senior staff on the review panel, rather than to a caseworker. The Court rejected that characterisation and considered the criticisms were capable of being understood as directed to those responsible for the young person’s care, which included Ms Soulos.

The Court also rejected DCJ’s argument that the suicide framing could not ground Ms Soulos’s sense of blame because she knew YP died of an accidental overdose, and it rejected an argument that some criticisms referred to conduct before she was the caseworker. The Court considered the segment could be understood in a way that made Ms Soulos’s perception of blame not far‑fetched or fanciful.

A Key Point: the Result was Shaped by how the Case was Run

The Court noted the outcome appeared “surprising” or “extraordinary” given the documentary was around 90 minutes long and the segment about YP was short and given neither YP nor Ms Soulos was publicly named. However, the Department had chosen not to contest a separate question, namely whether psychiatric injury was itself reasonably foreseeable once identification and perceived blame were foreseeable. Because of that position, the appeal was confined to the two narrow questions of identification and perceived blame.

What this Means for Workers

The decision illustrates that psychological injuries can arise from “indirect” work-related content such as a documentary, training material, internal review footage, or a case study, particularly where a worker is closely connected to the underlying events. It also shows that removing names does not necessarily prevent harm, because people who were directly involved may still recognise the individual or the circumstances from small details, especially where distinctive source material is used, such as quotations from a journal.

The case also underlines the importance of seeking support early if work-related communications or media leave you distressed. In many workplaces, it may be appropriate to raise the issue promptly with a supervisor, to request a debrief, and to access available supports such as EAP or referral to a treating practitioner. It may also be important to keep clear records of what occurred, when it occurred, who was notified, and what support was offered, particularly if the distress is ongoing or affects your capacity to work.

Finally, the amount of the award of damages highlights that where a worker is totally incapacitated and cannot return to work, the financial compensation can be significant, largely because future economic loss will become the main part of any damages assessment.

Should you be injured at work and require legal advice, contact Foye Legal to arrange a confidential consultation.