Appeal Outcome: Special leave application refused with costs by the High Court - 16 May 2008
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Monie v Commonwealth of Australia [2007] NSWCA 230
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 17 & 18 May 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:
3 September 2007JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Beazley JA at 2; Campbell JA at 3 DECISION: In substance, appeal allowed, verdict for Peter Monie for $238,750 plus interest; verdict for Jennifer Monie for $50,000 plus interest; new trial for Sam Monie on causation and quantum of damages (if any) excluding economic loss. Further submissions to be made concerning costs. CATCHWORDS: TORTS – negligence – essentials of action for negligence – duty of care – duty of care owed by Commonwealth Employment Service to prospective employer – where prospective employee referred by Commonwealth Employment Service was ex-offender – where Commonwealth Employment Service aware that prospective employee was ex-offender – where Commonwealth Employment Service failed to inform prospective employer that prospective employee was ex-offender – where employee subsequently shot employer – whether Commonwealth liable for damages suffered by employer - TORTS – negligence – voluntary assumption of risk (volenti not fit injuria) – requirements for finding of voluntary assumption of risk – where employer consented to having an ex-offender work and live on property – whether employer voluntarily consented to risk of being shot by employee - Smith v Baker & Sons [1891] AC 325 - Letang v Ottawa Electric Railway Company [1926] AC 725 - Osborne v London and North Western Railway Company (1888) 21 QBD 220 - Randwick City Council v Muzic [2006] NSWCA 66, applied - TORTS – negligence – contributory negligence – elements of contributory negligence – causation – where employer failed to adequately interview prospective employee – where employee subsequently shot employer – whether employer’s failure to adequately interview was causative of damages suffered - TORTS – negligence – damages – assessment of general damages – past loss – interest on past loss – future loss – date as at which assessment of damages should occur on appeal - TORTS – negligence – damages – psychiatric illness – whether recognisable psychiatric illness suffered - Tame v New South Wales - Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited (2002) 211 CLR 317, followed - TORTS – negligence – damages – economic loss – whether negligent act causative of economic loss sustained by farm business - TORTS – negligence – damages – causation – where damage caused by combination of negligent act and other factors – whether negligent act causative of damage - March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506, followed - COURTS AND JUDGES – pleadings – statement of claim – case abandoned – where statement of claim amended – whether part of case abandoned by amendment of statement of claim - COURTS AND JUDGES – witnesses – credit finding…
Continue reading Monie v Commonwealth of Australia
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Monie v Commonwealth of Australia [2007] NSWCA 230
- Case
- [2007] NSWCA 230
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Peter Monie and Jennifer Monie (the appellants) against the Commonwealth of Australia (the respondent). The dispute arose from an incident where an ex-offender, referred to the appellants by the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES), subsequently shot Peter Monie and caused psychiatric injury to Jennifer Monie. The appellants alleged negligence on the part of the CES in failing to disclose the prospective employee's ex-offender status to them, which they contended led to their injuries and economic loss.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the CES owed a duty of care to the appellants, and if so, whether that duty was breached. Further issues included whether the appellants had voluntarily assumed the risk of the ex-offender's violent behaviour, whether their own conduct contributed to their injuries, and whether the alleged negligence caused the damages suffered, including psychiatric illness and economic loss to the appellants' farm business. The Court also had to consider the trial judge's adverse credit findings and their impact on the appellants' case.
The Court of Appeal found that the CES did owe a duty of care to the appellants, and that this duty was breached by failing to disclose the ex-offender's criminal history. The Court rejected the argument of voluntary assumption of risk, applying the principles from *Smith v Baker & Sons* and *Randwick City Council v Muzic*, finding that the appellants had not consented to the specific risk of being shot. The Court also found that the trial judge had erred in making adverse credit findings, which had prejudiced the appellants' case. The Court applied the principles of causation from *March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd* and the principles for assessing damages for psychiatric illness from *Tame v New South Wales* and *Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited*.
In its orders, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in substance. It entered verdicts for Peter Monie for $238,750 plus interest and for Jennifer Monie for $50,000 plus interest. A new trial was ordered for Sam Monie on the issues of causation and the quantum of damages, excluding economic loss. Further submissions were to be made regarding costs.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the CES owed a duty of care to the appellants, and if so, whether that duty was breached. Further issues included whether the appellants had voluntarily assumed the risk of the ex-offender's violent behaviour, whether their own conduct contributed to their injuries, and whether the alleged negligence caused the damages suffered, including psychiatric illness and economic loss to the appellants' farm business. The Court also had to consider the trial judge's adverse credit findings and their impact on the appellants' case.
The Court of Appeal found that the CES did owe a duty of care to the appellants, and that this duty was breached by failing to disclose the ex-offender's criminal history. The Court rejected the argument of voluntary assumption of risk, applying the principles from *Smith v Baker & Sons* and *Randwick City Council v Muzic*, finding that the appellants had not consented to the specific risk of being shot. The Court also found that the trial judge had erred in making adverse credit findings, which had prejudiced the appellants' case. The Court applied the principles of causation from *March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd* and the principles for assessing damages for psychiatric illness from *Tame v New South Wales* and *Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited*.
In its orders, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in substance. It entered verdicts for Peter Monie for $238,750 plus interest and for Jennifer Monie for $50,000 plus interest. A new trial was ordered for Sam Monie on the issues of causation and the quantum of damages, excluding economic loss. Further submissions were to be made regarding costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
In substance, appeal allowed, verdict for Peter Monie for $238,750 plus interest; verdict for Jennifer Monie for $50,000 plus interest; new trial for Sam Monie on causation and quantum of damages (if any) excluding economic loss. Further submissions to be made concerning costs.
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.