Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ

CLARE JANET TAME APPELLANT

AND

THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES RESPONDENT

Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35

5 September 2002

S83/2001

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation:

P C B Semmler QC and N J Mullany for the appellant (instructed by Herbert Weller)

B H K Donovan QC with S C Finnane for the respondent (instructed by I V Knight, Crown Solicitor for New South Wales)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ

LESLIE ANNETTS & ANOR APPLICANTS

AND

AUSTRALIAN STATIONS PTY LIMITED RESPONDENT

Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited

5 September 2002

P97/2000

ORDER

1. Application for special leave granted. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Set aside the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dated 21 November 2000 and, in its place, order that the appeal to that Court be allowed and the question posed by Heenan J in his order dated 5 May 1999, for the trial of a preliminary issue, be answered "Yes". 4. Respondent to pay the applicants' costs at first instance, in the Full Court and in this Court.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Representation:

B W Walker QC with G M Watson for the applicants (instructed by Brezniak Neil-Smith & Co)

D F Jackson QC with S C Finnane for the respondent (instructed by Deacons)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Tame v New South Wales

Negligence – Duty of care – Psychiatric injury – Motor accident – Clerical error by police constable in recording driver's blood alcohol content – Psychotic depressive illness caused by driver learning of mistake – Whether duty of care owed by police constable to driver – Whether psychiatric injury reasonably foreseeable – Whether sole determinant of duty – Other control mechanisms for imposition of duty – Normal fortitude – Sudden shock – Direct perception – Immediate aftermath.