Jacka v Australian Capital Territory & Anor

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in a dispute between the appellant, Jacka, and the respondents, the Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth of Australia. The proceedings concerned the appellant's claim for damages arising from alleged breaches of duty of care by the respondents in relation to the management of the appellant's financial affairs.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondents owed the appellant a duty of care in the management of his financial affairs, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. This involved considering the scope of any such duty and the circumstances under which it might arise, particularly in the context of government agencies interacting with individuals regarding financial matters.

The High Court determined that the respondents did not owe the appellant a duty of care in the manner alleged. Their Honours found that the relationship between the appellant and the respondents was not one that attracted a duty of care in negligence. The Court reasoned that the actions of the respondents, as described, did not establish the necessary proximity or assumption of responsibility required to impose such a duty. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.