MFC v State of Tasmania - [2020] TASSC 9

[2020] TASSC 9

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: MFC v State of Tasmania [2020] TASSC 9

PARTIES:  MFC
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  1652/2019
DELIVERED ON:  6 April 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  30 March 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Holt AsJ

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Civil proceedings in State and Territory Courts – Ending proceedings early – Summary disposal – Generally – Claim not clearly untenable – Application for judgment dismissed – Application to strike-out pleadings in respect of the tort of misfeasance in public office dismissed.
Aust Dig Procedure [1296]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Plaintiff:  H Heuzenroeder
           Defendant:  P Turner SC
Solicitors:
           Plaintiff:  S + P Lawyers
           Defendant:  Office of the Solicitor-General

Judgment Number: [2020] TASSC 9
Number of paragraphs: 16

Serial No 9/2020
File No 1652/2019

MFC v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HOLT AsJ
6 April 2020

Introduction

In July 2019 the plaintiff filed a writ naming the State of Tasmania as defendant. An amended statement of claim was filed on 23 December 2019. In general terms, the allegations are as follows. In 2013 the plaintiff and his partner used their home as a foster home for five boys. On various occasions in January and February 2013 the 14 year old brother of two of the boys in foster care stayed overnight at the home. The child accused the plaintiff of sexually assaulting him and the plaintiff reported the allegation to the relevant department at the time overseeing foster care, being the Department of Health & Human Services. A police investigation followed which resulted in a decision not to bring charges. The Secretary of the Department was empowered under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 (Tas) (the Act), s 18 to conduct an assessment as to the circumstances of a child reasonably believed or suspected to be at risk. The task of undertaking the assessment was delegated to an officer of the Department. Notwithstanding the decision of the police not to bring charges, about a month after that decision, in June 2013, the officer published a report which implied that the plaintiff had sexually abused the child. The result was that the five foster children, then in the care of the plaintiff and his partner, were removed from the foster home with resultant economic loss to the plaintiff. The pleading includes a claim that in publishing her report the officer recklessly disregarded the scope of her authority and by so doing engaged in misfeasance in public office. There are other complaints about the conduct of the officer which the plaintiff alleges constitute misfeasance in public office. The pleading in respect of the claim for damages for misfeasance in public office appears at paragraphs 15 – 26 of the amended statement of claim.
Insofar as the claim that there was misfeasance in public office is concerned, the plaintiff says that the State is liable by reason of the Act, s 111, which is as follows:
"Protection…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MFC v State of Tasmania 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] TASSC 9
Decision Date: 6 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of MFC v State of Tasmania, the matter was before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, where the appellant sought to challenge the decision of the trial judge to dismiss applications for summary judgment and to strike out certain claims made in the original proceeding. The respondent, the State of Tasmania, had been sued in tort for misfeasance in public office in relation to the appellant's arrest and detention. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in dismissing the applications for summary judgment and to strike out the tort claims.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in dismissing the appellant's applications for summary judgment and to strike out the tort claims. The court examined the relevant legal principles and precedents in relation to the granting of summary judgment and the tort of misfeasance in public office. The court also considered the evidence and submissions made by both parties.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in dismissing the appellant's applications. The court held that the appellant's claims were not clearly untenable and that there were genuine issues of fact that needed to be resolved at trial. The court also found that the appellant had not established a prima facie case for the tort of misfeasance in public office. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the respondent acted beyond the scope of their statutory powers or with malice.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial judge. The court held that the applications for summary judgment and to strike out the tort claims were properly dismissed, and that the matter should proceed to trial on the merits. The court did not make any orders in relation to costs.

Orders