Duty of Care Pt3 (Novel Cases)

Question 1

Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office

Answer 1

First: “identify the relevant characteristics that are common to the kinds of conduct”
Second: “relationship between the parties which are involved in the case for decision”
Third: “the kinds of conduct and relationships which have been held in previous decisions of the courts to give rise to a duty of care.”

Lord Diplock

Question 2

Sullivan v Moody; Thomson v Connon (2001) 207 CLR 562

HC

Answer 2

Plaintiffs were parents who were accused of child abuse.

Need for coherence in law –> concerns that if a new DoC was recognised, it may be unnecessary because another area of the law already covers it (e.g. defamation), or the duty may be incompatible with another duty (e.g. duty of social workers and professionals of reporting possible child abuse and protecting children, which was seen as incompatible with a concurrent duty to their parents).

Question 3

Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180

Answer 3

Incremental Approach

Question 4

Caltex Refineries Pty Ltd v Stavar (2009) 75 NSWLR 649; [2009] NSWCA 258
Salient factors

Answer 4

Mrs Stavar developed malignant mesothelioma after washing her husband’s asbestos contaminated clothes.

Provides a comprehensive list of factors that can be considered.

“There is no suggestion in the cases that it is compulsory in any given case to make findings about all of these features. Nor should the list be seen as exhaustive.”