Sullivan v Moody

Facts

Child abuse investigators, including medical practitioners and social workers employed by the State of South Australia, conducted examinations of children and made findings that the plaintiff fathers had sexually abused their children. The fathers were not charged but suffered serious harm to their reputations and family relationships as a result of the investigations and findings. The fathers brought negligence claims against the investigators, alleging a duty of care was owed to them personally.

Issues

1. Whether investigators conducting child abuse inquiries owed a duty of care in negligence to the persons suspected of committing that abuse. 2. Whether the legal framework governing such investigations was inconsistent with the existence of a duty of care running to the suspected abusers.

Holding

The High Court held unanimously that the defendant investigators did not owe the plaintiff fathers a duty of care in negligence, and dismissed the appeals.

Ratio decidendi

A duty of care will not be imposed where it would conflict with or be inconsistent with another duty or obligation that the defendant is required by law to perform; in determining whether a novel duty of care exists, courts must examine all the salient features of the relationship and the statutory or legal context, rather than mechanically applying a two-stage proximity or assumption-of-responsibility test.

Obiter dicta

The joint judgment cautioned against the use of any single overriding formula — including the Caparo three-stage test or Anns-style two-stage test — as a universal criterion for the existence of a duty of care in Australian law, emphasising that the common law develops by reference to principle applied to the specific facts and legal context of each case.

Significance

Sullivan v Moody is a foundational authority for the 'salient features' or multifactorial approach to novel duty of care questions in Australian tort law, confirming that no single test is determinative and that statutory context and conflicting duties are central considerations; it remains the leading High Court statement on the methodology for determining novel duties of care.

Key authorities

• Brodie v Singleton Shire Council Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512cited
• Perre v Apand Pty Ltd Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180considered
• Pyrenees Shire Council v Day Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330considered
• Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424considered
• Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53distinguished
• Caparo Industries plc v Dickman Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605considered