← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case duty of care

Sullivan v Moody

(2001) 207 CLR 562
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year2001
StatusBinding authority

Summary

HCA held that a general neighbourhood principle cannot determine duty of care; coherence of the law acts as a constraining factor in novel duty situations.

Key Principle

duty of care; HCA rejected a general neighbourhood principle; coherence of the law is a constraining factor

Area of Law

Tort and Negligence

Related Cases

Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1

Costs of raising a healthy child born following negligent sterilisation advice are recoverable as damages in a wrongful birth claim.

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180

High Court of Australia established a multi-factor approach to pure economic loss, considering vulnerability, assumption of responsibility, and control in determining duty of care.

March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506

The but-for test is not the exclusive test for causation in negligence; courts must apply a common sense approach informed by policy considerations.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Sullivan v Moody and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Sullivan v Moody