What the Star Entertainment case means for how psychosocial risk reaches the board
At a recent panel event that I facilitated with The Next Step, The Safe Step & dss+, the recent Star Entertainment judgment came up in conversation. Now the case has moved further along, it’s worth looking at the fallout, and what has happened since.
The background
On 5 March 2026, the Federal Court found that Star's former CEO, Matthias Bekier, and former Chief Legal and Risk Officer, Paula Martin, had breached their duty of care under section 180 of the Corporations Act. The finding centred on how they handled serious risk information, and specifically, whether it was properly escalated for the board to act on. The seven non-executive directors weren't found liable: the evidence had been buried in lengthy board materials that management hadn't drawn their attention to. ASIC has confirmed it won't appeal that part of the decision.
The case has since moved to consequences
On 17 June 2026, the Court handed down penalties. Bekier was disqualified from managing corporations for six years and ordered to pay $700,000. Martin was disqualified for seven years and ordered to pay $400,000 (ASIC media release, 17 June 2026). Both penalties were lower than ASIC sought, but Justice Lee's comments are the part boards should note: he found that failures of this kind "may attract substantial personal consequences" for senior executives, not just directors. Bekier and Martin are appealing the liability finding, so this isn't fully settled, but the direction so far is clear.
Why this matters beyond casinos
The judgment wasn't about psychosocial risk, but the reasoning applies directly to it. The non-executive directors escaped liability because the information didn't reach them in a usable form. That's the failure mode Wade Needham described from the psychosocial risk side at our panel: executives deciding "we'll manage it, the board doesn't need to know," and complaints or whistleblower matters framed as a threat to management's credibility rather than escalated as a genuine risk signal.
What this means for how you brief your board
A colour-coded risk register documents a position; the Star judgment turned on whether directors could actually interrogate the information behind it.
Executives now carry real personal exposure for how they handle escalation, alongside directors.
Ask for psychosocial risk information at the point of an emerging signal, not once it's become a formal complaint.
Psychological injury claims nationally have grown 161% over the past decade and now cost businesses several times more, on average, than a physical injury claim (Safe Work Australia, 2025). Between that trend and the Star case, boards have a clear, current reason to ask what "enough" oversight looks like.