Stuart & Anor v Kirkland-Veenstra & Anor - [2008] HCATrans 397

[2008] HCATrans 397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M39 of 2008

B e t w e e n -
DAVID STUART
First Appellant
ANTHONY WOOLCOCK
Second Appellant
and
TANIA KIRKLAND‑VEENSTRA
First Respondent
STATE OF VICTORIA
Second Respondent

FRENCH CJ
GUMMOW J
HAYNE J
HEYDON J
CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT MELBOURNE ON WEDNESDAY, 3 DECEMBER 2008, AT 11.51 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
MR J. RUSKIN, QC:   If the Court pleases, in this appeal I appear with, MS R.J. ORR, for the appellants. (instructed by Victorian Government Solicitor)
MR J.H. KENNAN, SC:   If the Court pleases, I appear with MR P.T. VOUT and MR P. HALLEY, for the first respondent. (instructed by Slater & Gordon - Melbourne)
MR M.F. WHEELAHAN, SC:   If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.D. RUSH, for the second respondent. (instructed by Deacons Lawyers - Melbourne)
FRENCH CJ:   Yes, Mr Ruskin.
MR RUSKIN:   Thank you, your Honour. The central issue in this appeal is whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that two police officers had a duty to take reasonable care to protect a member of the public, Mr Veenstra, from the risk of harm in the form of suicide. The duty found by the Court of Appeal was said to arise in the context of or facilitated by the Mental Health Act 1986, and in considering the question of whether the duty of care arose, we point out first, four features: (1) the duty that the Court of Appeal found is an entirely novel duty; (2) this was not a case where the person to whom the duty was said to be owed was in custody; (3) there was no extraordinary conduct by the police, as that might be understood from cases such as Knightley ‑ and I will say something about that in one moment ‑ and the fourth is that normally, there is no duty of care to prevent a person harming himself or herself.
The question of extraordinary conduct where duties have been found in the cases we have referred to just in the footnote of our submissions at footnote 12, one of which is called Knightley [1982] WLR, and the other a case called Rigby [1985] WLR. Knightley was a case which involved a traffic situation where the policeman or the inspector failed to close a tunnel and caused an accident when directing another policeman to drive on the wrong side of the road, and Rigby was a case where, in the course of an operation, the police were involved in throwing a canister into a building, so there were positive acts of an unusual kind which were said to give rise to the duty of care.

Now, here we contend that there is no duty and in that respect we say that the duty of care that is postulated is one which would be inconsistent…

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 Stuart & Anor v Kirkland-Veenstra & Anor 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: [2008] HCATrans 397
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning the liability of a farmer and his wife for the death of their neighbour, Mr. Kirkland-Veenstra. Mr. Kirkland-Veenstra, who had a history of mental health issues and had expressed suicidal ideation, was found dead on the Stuarts' property, having died by suicide. The deceased's executors brought proceedings against the Stuarts, alleging negligence in failing to prevent his death.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Stuarts owed a duty of care to Mr. Kirkland-Veenstra to prevent him from taking his own life on their property. This involved considering the circumstances in which a duty of care might arise in relation to a person's self-harm, particularly when that person is an adult with apparent capacity. The Court also had to determine whether, assuming a duty of care existed, the Stuarts had breached that duty by their actions or omissions.

The High Court, by majority, held that the Stuarts did not owe a duty of care to Mr. Kirkland-Veenstra. The Court reasoned that, as a general principle, a duty of care does not arise to prevent an adult of sound mind from taking their own life. While acknowledging that exceptions might exist in specific circumstances, such as where a person is under the control of another or where a special relationship exists, the Court found that the relationship between the Stuarts and Mr. Kirkland-Veenstra did not fall within such exceptions. The Court emphasised that imposing a duty of care in this context would be an unwarranted extension of the law of negligence and would place an unreasonable burden on individuals to monitor and control the actions of their neighbours.

The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings in the Supreme Court were dismissed.

Orders