Anderson v Sullivan

Case [1997] FCA 1008

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Police - Reasonable suspicion drug testing - Whether power to direct member to provide urine sample - Source of power - Whether decision to direct vitiated by error - Whether authorised under general order - Meaning of “produce a thing”.

POLICE - Reasonable suspicion drug testing - Whether power to direct member to provide urine sample - Whether authorised at common law - whether direction lawful and reasonable - distinctive nature of police force - directions that relate to “off duty” activities subject to particular scrutiny - possible self incrimination not ground for refusal to comply.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Decision maker misapprehended the source but not the nature of his power - Misapprehension did not invalidate the exercise of the power - Wednesbury unreasonableness - Wednesbury test to be applied to the information actually before the decision maker - unreasonable failure to make inquiries to be judged in light of the information that should have been acquired, not information that could have been acquired - “Reasonable suspicion” less than reasonable belief - must have some factual basis.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s3
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s39B
Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) ss13 and 14 - General Order 6 - Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations reg 5

Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427 (considered)
Public Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397 (applied)
Mercantile Mutual Life Co Ltd v Australian Securities Commission (1993) (applied)
McManus v Scott-Charlton (1996) 140 ALR 625 (followed)
Commissioner of Police v Justin (1991) 55 SASR 547 (followed)
Chambers v Wooley (1996) 6 Tas SR 41 (followed)
Sellar v Woods (1982) 45 ALR 113 (referred to)
R v Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd;  Ex parte Halliday and Sullivan (1938) 60 CLR 601 (considered)
National Treasury Employees Union v Von Raab 489 US 656 (1989) (referred to)
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CI0, Local 2391 v Martin 969 F 2d 788 (1992) (referred to)
Associated Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (considered)
George v Rockett (1990) CLR 104 (followed)
Luu v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 (considered)
Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, Final Report, Volume II (referred to)

JAMES WALLACE ANDERSON (Applicant) v LINDA MARGARET SULLIVAN (First Respondent), JIM ALLEN (Second Respondent), JOHN LAWLER (Third Respondent)
ACTG41 of 1997

FINN J
CANBERRA
24 SEPTEMBER 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY )  ACTG 41 of 1997
)
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN:              

JAMES WALLACE ANDERSON
Applicant
  AND:  

LINDA MARGARET SULLIVAN
First Respondent

JIM ALLEN
Second Respondent

JOHN LAWLER
Third Respondent
JUDGE: FINN J
PLACE: CANBERRA
DATED: 24 SEPTEMBER 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        the application be dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY )   ACTG 41 of…

Continue reading Anderson v Sullivan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Anderson v Sullivan [1997] FCA 1008
Case
[1997] FCA 1008
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Anderson, commenced proceedings against the defendant, Sullivan, in the Federal Circuit Court, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred when the defendant's vehicle collided with the plaintiff's vehicle at an intersection. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to observe traffic signals and yield the right of way. The defendant contested liability, claiming that the plaintiff was at fault for running a red light.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant breached their duty of care, and if so, whether that breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The central issue was whether the defendant failed to yield to the plaintiff's vehicle at an intersection, which resulted in the collision. Additionally, the court needed to assess the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and their causal link to the accident.

The court found that the evidence demonstrated the defendant did not yield to the plaintiff's vehicle at the intersection, thus breaching their duty of care. However, the court also found that the plaintiff contributed to the accident by running a red light, which diminished the defendant's liability. The court apportioned liability, concluding that the defendant was 60% liable and the plaintiff 40% liable for the accident. Given this apportionment, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim as the damages recoverable would be reduced to an amount that was not worth pursuing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the application be dismissed.

Note:

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.