Clark v the Corporation of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane

Oliver Clark initiated proceedings against the Corporation of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane and Francis Rush, the Archbishop of Brisbane, alleging negligent misstatement and breach of fiduciary duty arising from spiritual advice provided by Rush. The primary issue before the court was whether Rush, in his capacity as Archbishop, owed a common law duty of care to Clark for the advice provided on spiritual matters, specifically regarding intercommunion. The court examined whether the relationship between the parties established a duty of care or a fiduciary relationship enforceable at common law.

The court determined that the relationship between a bishop and a communicant did not create a common law duty of care or a fiduciary duty enforceable in secular courts. The court emphasized that membership in a Church is voluntary and that the law treats such membership similarly to membership in any voluntary association. The court concluded that the alleged duty of care and fiduciary duties were not recognized by the common law and that any duty would stem from Canon law rather than secular law. Therefore, the court found that the proposed amended statement of claim did not disclose a viable cause of action for either negligent misstatement or breach of fiduciary duty.

Consequently, the court refused leave to deliver the amended statement of claim, holding that it was vexatious and scandalous and would unnecessarily prejudice and delay the proceedings. The plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to draft a viable statement of claim, and the court left open the possibility of determining any new issues on a subsequent application. The summons was dismissed with costs awarded against the plaintiff.