McDonald v The State of South Australia; McDonald v The Minister for Education and Child Development

This matter came before Vanstone J and Slattery and Gilchrist AJJ of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The proceedings involved Mr McDonald as the applicant and the State of South Australia and the Minister for Education and Child Development as respondents. The core of the dispute concerned Mr McDonald's claims arising from his employment as a teacher and later as an IT co-ordinator with the South Australian Department of Education and Children's Services (DECS). These claims related to his workload, alleged bullying and harassment, and the handling of his resignation and subsequent employment arrangements.

The court was required to determine whether Mr McDonald's pleaded case disclosed a reasonable cause of action, or alternatively, constituted an abuse of process. Specifically, the court considered whether claims for breach of contract and breach of duty of care were barred by principles of *Anshun* estoppel, given that similar factual material had been considered in prior proceedings before Anderson J. The court also had to assess the adequacy of the pleadings regarding injury, serious and wilful misconduct, and claims of injurious falsehood and negligence against individual defendants.

Nicholson J, whose reasoning was adopted by the Full Court, held that Mr McDonald should not be permitted to pursue claims that required a reconsideration of factual material already determined by Anderson J. The court found that these matters should have been, and could have been, litigated in the earlier proceedings, and attempting to re-litigate them constituted an abuse of process and an attempt to re-litigate settled controversies. Furthermore, the court found no proper pleading of injury and that claims under the relevant legislation were barred. The purported pleadings in negligence and injurious falsehood against individual defendants were struck out, with the court noting that the *Workplace Relations Act* (WRC Act) provided a complete answer to certain claims and that one defendant was entitled to immunity under the *Public Sector Management Act 1995* (SA).