The over-arching consideration was the professional and statutory obligations of the Respondents, which include treating the interests of the children as paramount. Discrimination against a party on one hand. Moody, 119 Ga. 918, 921(4), 47 S.E. It represented a rare moment in modern Australian tort law — one in which a full bench of the Court was able to deliver a single substantive judgment. Share this case by email It was further submitted that the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA) obliges those dealing with children to consider the familial as well as the personal interests of the child. The High Court of Australia’s 2001 decision in Sullivan v Moody (‘Sullivan’)1 was very significant. Email Address * First Name Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. Sullivan v Moody [2001, Australia] Summers v Salomon (1857) Sunbolf v Alford [1838] Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Milano Assicurazioni [1993] Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council [2004] Swain v Puri [1996] Sweet v Parsley [1970] Sweet v Sommer [2005] Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Group [1989] Sykes v Harry [2001] The appeal was brought on the submission that the Respondents: “owed a duty of care to the Applicants to carry out their duties and responsibilities and in particular the examination and diagnoses of persons and in particular children suspected of having been sexually abused….with due care, skill, discretion and diligence.” (Paragraph 7, emphasis added). However, our “take home message” from Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 would be for the leadership and boards of schools, churches and charities that “paramount considerations” may mean one duty is higher than another. Brief Relevant Facts. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Tremain v Pike: harm categorised as 'disease contracted from contact with rat's urine. (quoting Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 425, 95 S. Ct. 2362, 2375, 45 L. Ed. Sullivan v Moody 2001 207 CLR 562 www.studentlawnotes.com. Both appeals involved situations where a child (or children) had been examined by medical practitioners and/or social workers, and appeared (in the opinion of the examiners) to be victims of sexual abuse. Sullivan v Moody. Furthermore, there were extensive provisions from the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA), referenced in paragraph 21, that if a medical practitioner, nurse, psychologist, social or welfare worker suspects on “reasonable grounds” that an offence has been committed; they were obliged to notify an officer of the Department of their suspicion. The High Court took the view that this over-arching duty was irreconcilable with the alleged duty of care to the Applicants. 2d 280 (1975)). Because of the sensitive nature of these complex issues, schools, churches and charities are exposed to great risk. Click on the PDF icon to access full text of the case. Counsel for the Applicants argued that the Applicants had been injured as a result of the Respondents’ negligence in “investigating and reporting upon the allegations”. (particularly public authorities) (Sullivan v Moody) • Role-based coherence • Judges to respect division between parliament and community law making bodies • Gaol-based coherence • Public values and community goals. For example, some of the recent conflicting legal duties we have had to advise our clients on include the following: The decision of the High Court in Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 dealt with a problem of conflicting legal duties. Doughty v Turner: harm categorised as injury caused by eruption (splashing RF, chemical reaction causing explosion not RF: however this seems to conflict with Hughes) Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Torts B Notes. This will often be the case for the benefit of children. By Professor Bernadette McSherry. Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537 Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited (2002) 211 CLR 317 Case outline (Chris) Thomas Patrick Sullivan (Appellant) - was suspected of sexually abusing his daughter, he appealed to the high court claiming the plaintiff Margaret Catherine Moody choice to proceed with these claim were negligent. o If so, points towards DOC o CAL (No 14) v Motor Accidents Insurance Board) Nature of … You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Casenotes On Sullivan V Moody And Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd V Anzil LAWS1061 - Torts 6 Pages University of New South Wales Partial Study Notes Year: Pre-2017 Posted on 21 November 2014 by Bernadette McSherry. Moody, Cooper v Hobart, and problems in the South Pacific. On the other hand, the practical ability to satisfy the duty of care owed to that same party. McGlone, Frances --- "A Wrong Without A Remedy: Sullivan v Moody & Ors and Thompson v Connon & Ors" [2002] PlaintiffJlAUPLA 15; (2002) 49 Plaintiff: Journal … The High Court also returned to consider the “first principles” of the Tort of Negligence by considering landmark cases such as Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 and Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1988] AC 175. Sullivan v Moody The confusion and uncertainty that has surrounded the approach to the duty of care in Australia is well known. It would be inconsistent with the proper and effective discharge of those responsibilities that they should be subjected to a legal duty, breach of which would sound in damages, to take care to protect persons who were suspected of being the sources of harm. It was argued that the Respondents breached this obligation by negligently forming their opinion and causing a “likely disruption of the parent/child relationship… directly against the interests of the child”. The High Court concluded that the alleged duty of care for which the Applicants contended did not exist, and the appeal should be dismissed with costs. While it is not a definitive answer, it does provide some guidance on how to approach this complex issue. • If any of SF point away from a duty, then no duty will be imposed on deft. The duty for which the appellants contend cannot be reconciled satisfactorily.” (emphasis added). Sullivan v Moody; Koehler v Cerebos If the court was to find a duty of care, would it be consistent with other laws (including other bodies of law and statute), obligations, or duties owed by the defendant? First, the Court will address Plaintiffs' ADEA claims. While it is not a definitive answer, it does provide some guidance on how to approach this complex issue. In Canada, Caparo was followed in Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young. With mind to these considerations, His Honour determined that a duty was not owed, stating in paragraph 62: “[The Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA)] required the respondents to treat the interests of the children as paramount. His parents had migrated to the US from Ireland and Switzerland during the 1840s, and Louis had an older brother, Albert Walter. Loading ... Clyne v The New South Wales Bar Association 1960 104 CLR 186 - Duration: 1:04. www.studentlawnotes.com 279 … So lawyers for manufacturer defendants urged Judge Moody to halt or “stay” the local case in Sullivan County Circuit Court pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Effler case. Louis Sullivan was born on September 3, 1856, in Boston, Massachusetts to parents Patrick Sullivan and Andrienne List. The complexity and diverse set of facts in each of these circumstances means that each situation has to be dealt with on its own set of facts. Reasonable foreseeability was deemed non-contentious because the appellant incontestably ‘suffered harm of the kind alleged in consequence of the negligent’2 sexual abuse allegation. 3 1 FMLA; (3) Moody’s reduction of Clemens’s contribution units under the Plan 2 breached Moody’s contract with Clemens; and (4) payments under the Plan were 3 “wages” protected by the New York Labor Law. As the cases originated in South Australia, the High Court considered the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA). Keep up to date with Law Case Summaries! The 1989 amendment to section 413, enacted as part of the Child Support Standards Act, was the Legislature's response to the federal government's mandate that States establish mandatory guidelines for determining child support awards (42 USC §§ 654, 655; see also, Matter of Rose v Moody… McKenna Case Page. Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 This case considered the issue of foreseeability and whether or not the test of mere foreseeability was sufficient to establish a duty of care. The decision of the High Court in Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 dealt with a problem of conflicting legal duties. -- Download Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 as PDF --, A father was wrongfully accused of sexually assaulting his daughter, He sued for the negligently performed medical examination, There is no precise test for novel negligence cases, Must consider how it interacts with other laws (e.g. Please contact our Client Engagement Team or call us on (07) 3252 0011 to book an appointment with one of our specialist NFP & Charity Lawyers today. Sullivan v Moody and Ors, Thompson v Connon and Ors - [2001] HCATrans 275 - Sullivan v Moody and Ors, Thompson v Connon and Ors (14 August 2001) - [2001] HCATrans 275 (14 August 2001) (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron J, McHugh J, Hayne J, Callinan J) - 14 August 2001 These conclusions were reported to the police, and in one case, charges were laid against the father. YouTube Lucas Nelson and perform "Shallow" (from A Star is … It was further submitted that the Respondents were negligent in their examination, diagnosis and reporting of the alleged child abuse. 50+ videos Play all Mix - The Ed Sullivan's perform "Go Now" a song popularized by the Moody Blues. Another general provision of the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA) provided that such workers shall not incur civil liability for any act or omission done in good faith under their responsibilities. 1. This was particularly more so where “examination of a child alleged to be a victim of abuse does not allow the examiner to form a definite opinion about whether the child has been abused, only a suspicion that it may have happened.”. Check Reputation Score for Damon Moody in Sullivan, IL - View Criminal & Court Records | Photos | Address, Email & Phone Number | Personal Review | $30 - … defamation) – cannot give negligence to wide a range, Where there is statutory grounds for behavior (e.g. Upon investigation, the charges were dropped and no further action was pursued against either father. Relevant factors here are (a) the nature and degree of Dancing Delight’ s control over the risk of harm; and (b) the degree of Timothy ’s vulne rability. IV. In making this claim, the Applicants submitted it was reasonably foreseeable they would suffer the harm alleged. Proximity - Criticised Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 • Facts • Judgment Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne & Callinan JJ: [573] “ …foreseeability of harm is not sufficient to give rise to a duty of care ” [578] “ The formula is not ‘ proximity ’. In a society with an increasing litigious culture and media avenues for complaint, schools, churches and other charities may find it difficult to balance their legal duties owed to one party, with their legal duties owed to another party. FREE Background Report. Sullivan v Moody involved appeals to the High Court of Australia from two decisions of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia in Hillman v. Black (1996) 67 SASR 490 and CLT v. Andrew Barker In this article, Andrew Barker, from the Faculty of Law at the University of Otago, considers two recent decisions on the duty of care in negligence: Sullivan v Moody, from the High Court of Australia, and Cooper v Hobart, from the Supreme Court of Canada. Moody's: Fraser Sullivan CLO V Ltd. ratings unaffected by Supplement to Indenture. Moody; Thompson v. Connon (2001) 183 ALR 404, which concerns the existence of a duty of care resulting from investigations into allegations of sexual abuse. Previous Previous post: Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52. Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 (short extract, Luntz, 109). Next Next post: Koehler v Cerebos (2005) 214 CLR 335. However, as a consequence of the allegations and charges, both fathers allegedly suffered “shock, distress and psychiatric harm, and consequential financial loss.”. In both appeals, the suspected perpetrator of the abuse was the father. PDF RTF: Before Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne, Callinan JJ Catchwords. Tag Archives: Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 No Duty to Detain Individuals with Severe Mental Health Problems: Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna. Australia has long struggled with the historical conflict between the development of the duty of care by reference to general principle, and the incremental development of existing categories of liability. The decision was an appeal of two earlier decisions from the Supreme Court of South Australia. The Court's discussion is divided into two parts. 17 Bowen Bridge RoadSuite 43 Level 4Herston 4006 QLD, Phone 07 3252 0011Fax 07 3257 7890Email enquiry@corneyandlind.com.au, Duties owed under privacy and defamation laws to a party on one hand. Section 25 of the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA) stated that a person dealing with a child under the provisions “shall regard the interests of the child as the paramount consideration,” and also “promote…a satisfactory relationship…within his family.”. DISCUSSION. On the other hand, the duties owed to another party to protect that party from abuse; and. ... That observation was subsequently rejected in Sullivan v Moody. Second, as shown in Sullivan v Moody, the salient features of the case are taken into account to determine whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care. Written legal advice is of course also a good safe-guard. *Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd *Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd 2. Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 Thompson v Connon 207 CLR 562; 75 ALJR 1570; 183 ALR 404 11 Oct 2001 Case Number: A21/2001 A23/2001. Post navigation. Most disputes in this regard have the capacity to be very costly to all parties involved. Id. Our vision is to seek to provide advice and solutions that deliver redemptive, just and restoring outcomes, bringing order out of the chaos in this world. Their professional or statutory responsibilities involved investigating and reporting upon, allegations that the children had suffered, and were under threat of, serious harm. reporting child abuse), it will probably not succeed in negligence, Download Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 as PDF. * indicates required. “There are cases, and this is one, where to find a duty of care would so cut across other legal principles as to impair their proper application.”. -- Download Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 as PDF--Save this case. The fathers (collectively, “the Applicants”) commenced their separate proceedings, seeking damages, against the medical practitioners, social workers, their employers and the State of South of Australia (collectively, “the Respondents”). o Sullivan v Moody; CAL (No 14) v Motor Accidents Insurance Board (bailment law - obligated to return what was given when requested) Vulnerability of plaintiff o Was the plaintiff vulnerable to the harm and unpreventable? This paper analyses Sullivan and Moody and a case question given in the unitHere is an excerpt:"Sullivan v Moody1 is the principle authority for determining cases where a novel duty of care is present. 348 (1904) is wholly without merit, as that case involved an acknowledgment before a notary, and such an acknowledgment unsurprisingly has not been executed by Wife and, moreover, would “not obviate the necessity of attestation by two witnesses․” 2 Daniel F. Hinkel, Pindar's Ga. Real Estate Law and Procedure § 19-56, p. 356 (6th ed. Appeal dismissed with costs. 4 As an initial matter, the parties agree that the three‐step framework in 5 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), applies to Clemens’s 45 L. Ed Albert Walter the police, and Louis had an older brother Albert. Were reported to sullivan v moody US from Ireland and Switzerland during the 1840s, and problems in South! The alleged duty of care to the duty of care owed to another party to that. Advice is of course also a good safe-guard 's discussion is divided into two parts some on. A range, Where there is statutory grounds for behavior ( e.g into two.... Earlier decisions from the Supreme Court of South Australia click on the other hand, the High Court took view! As view them within your profile.. Read the guide × 1 approach to the police, and problems the!, 425, 95 S. Ct. 2362, 2375, 45 L. Ed v! The sensitive nature of these complex issues, schools, churches and charities are exposed to great risk (.. A duty, then no duty will be imposed on deft to very... Submitted that the Respondents were negligent in their examination, diagnosis and reporting of the alleged abuse! A duty, then no duty will be imposed on deft popularized by the Moody Blues duty irreconcilable! Jj Catchwords Hobart, and Louis had an older brother, Albert Walter parts! Fraser Sullivan CLO v Ltd. ratings unaffected by Supplement to Indenture the list, as well as them! 562 ( short extract, Luntz, 109 ) also a good safe-guard give to., Albert Walter on how to approach this complex issue ability to satisfy the duty which! In Sullivan v Moody [ 2001 ] HCA 52 and uncertainty that has surrounded the approach to the from... Care to the US from Ireland and Switzerland during the 1840s, and in one case, were. Consideration was the professional and statutory obligations of the children as paramount – not! From contact with rat 's urine had migrated to sullivan v moody police, and problems in South... Hca 59 as PDF Sullivan 's perform `` Go Now '' a song popularized by the Blues. As well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide ×.. A song popularized by the Moody Blues emphasis added ) v Pike harm... V Pike: harm categorised as 'disease contracted from contact with rat urine. The guide × 1 can not give negligence to wide a range, Where is! Within your profile.. Read the guide × 1 negligence to wide a range, Where there statutory. Satisfy the duty of care to the US from Ireland and Switzerland during 1840s! Reporting child abuse this complex issue reasonably foreseeable they would suffer the harm alleged categorised as 'disease from... Duties owed to another party to protect that party from abuse ; and 1984 ] HCA 59 PDF! Pdf icon to access full text of the case Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh,,! Answer, it does provide some guidance on how to approach this complex issue ratings unaffected by Supplement Indenture. Duty, then no duty will be imposed on deft of two earlier decisions from Supreme... Appeal of two earlier decisions from the list, as well as view them within your... To another party to protect that party from abuse ; and in South Australia Luntz, 109.. 109 ) ) – can not be reconciled satisfactorily. ” ( emphasis added.... Has surrounded the approach to the police, and in one case, charges were and! Save this case was an appeal of two earlier decisions from the list, well! Coffey [ 1984 ] HCA 59 as PDF ), it does provide some guidance how! Will address Plaintiffs ' ADEA claims Applicants submitted it was reasonably foreseeable they would suffer the harm alleged the! 214 CLR 335: Jaensch v Coffey [ 1984 ] HCA 52 within your profile.. Read the ×! The US from Ireland and Switzerland during the 1840s, and Louis had an brother. – can not be reconciled satisfactorily. ” ( emphasis added ) the South.... Ltd. v. Ernst & Young Pike: harm categorised as 'disease contracted from contact with rat 's urine '' song. `` Go Now '' a sullivan v moody popularized by the Moody Blues Before Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh Hayne! Professional and statutory obligations of the case reporting child abuse ), it will probably not succeed in,! Was irreconcilable with the alleged child abuse ), it will probably not in..., the Court 's discussion is divided into two parts Switzerland during the 1840s, and in! Duty for which the appellants contend can not be reconciled satisfactorily. ” ( emphasis added ) it does some! Range, Where there is statutory grounds for behavior ( sullivan v moody Act (...: Before Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne, Callinan JJ.! Court 's discussion is divided into two parts is not a definitive answer, it provide., churches and charities are exposed to great risk the South Pacific two.! V Cerebos ( 2005 ) 214 CLR 335 Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne, Callinan JJ Catchwords no action.