Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: AB v State New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 81 Hearing dates: 23/07/2013 Decision date: 21 February 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: (1) Order, pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010, that there be no publication or other disclosure of the identity of the plaintiff, his daughter or of the second defendant school, or of any evidence or other material which would tend to reveal their identity.
(2) Statement of Claim filed 11 December 2012 be, and hereby is, dismissed.
(3) AB to pay the costs of the State of NSW of the proceedings.
Catchwords: PROCEDURE - civil - summary disposal - dismissal - whether reasonable cause of action - whether claim that an authorised carer under Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 is an employee of the State of NSW is reasonable - whether claim that indemnity from the State of NSW for loss or damage suffered by an authorised carer encompasses ordinary and usual expenses of rearing a child is reasonable
STATUTORY INTEPRETATION - Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988, s 147 - "loss or damage", "authorised carer", "caused by a child or young person"
WORDS AND PHRASES - "loss or damage" - Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 s 147Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012,
Commission for Children and Young People Act, 1998
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010
Ombudsman Act 1974
Uniform Civil Procedure RulesCases Cited: Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552
Burton v Bairnsdale Shire [1908] HCA 57; (1908) 7 CLR 76
Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138
Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1
Harrison v Melhem (2008) 72 NSWLR 380
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1; (1949) 78 CLR 62
Dossett v TKJ Nominees Pty Ltd (2003) 218 CLR 1
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd [1983] HCA 25; (1983) 154 CLR 87
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (No.3) (1987) 11 NSWLR 404
Nolan v Clifford (1904) 1 CLR 429
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Re Bolton; Ex Parte Beane (1987) 162 CLR 514
Ross v The Queen (1979) 141 CLR 432
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118
Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1
Wilson v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 198Category: Principal judgment Parties: AB (P)
State of New South Wales (D1)
The School (D2)Representation: Counsel:
In person (P)
M Allars (D1)
Submitting appearance (D2)
Solicitors:
In person (P)
NSW Crown Solicitor (D1)
Emil Ford Lawyers (D2) (Submitting appearance)
File Number(s): 2012/384382 Publication restriction: Suppression of parties' names
Judgment
On 11 December…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read AB v State New South Wales and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] NSWSC 81
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with deciding whether AB's claims presented a reasonable cause of action. Specifically, the court had to determine if AB's assertion that he was an employee of the State of New South Wales was reasonable and whether the indemnity provision could be interpreted to include ordinary and usual expenses of rearing a child. These issues required a careful examination of the statutory language and the legislative intent behind the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988.
The court found that AB's claims did not present a reasonable cause of action. It concluded that AB's interpretation of being an employee of the State was not supported by the statutory language or legislative intent. Furthermore, the court held that the term "loss or damage" as used in the Act did not encompass ordinary and usual expenses of rearing a child. Consequently, AB's claim for indemnity was dismissed.
As a result of the court's determination, AB's claims were dismissed with no orders for costs. The court's decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the statutory language and the legislative framework, leaving no room for AB's interpretation of the provisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.