Sullivan v Moody & Ors, Thompson v Connon

The High Court of Australia considered appeals in two cases, *Sullivan v Moody* and *Thompson v Connon*, which concerned claims for damages for psychiatric injury. In *Sullivan v Moody*, the plaintiffs were parents who alleged they suffered psychiatric injury as a result of being falsely accused of child sexual abuse by police officers and a child protection agency. In *Thompson v Connon*, the plaintiff alleged psychiatric injury arising from the negligent investigation of child sexual abuse allegations by police officers.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a duty of care was owed by the police officers and the child protection agency to the plaintiffs in relation to the investigations conducted, such that they could be held liable for psychiatric injury caused by their alleged negligence. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the existing common law principles regarding the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric injury were applicable in these circumstances, or if there were policy reasons to preclude such a duty of care.

The High Court held that no duty of care was owed by the police officers or the child protection agency to the plaintiffs in relation to the investigations. The Court reasoned that the imposition of a duty of care in such circumstances would give rise to an unacceptable risk of indeterminate liability and would unduly interfere with the proper functioning of the criminal justice system and child protection agencies. The Court affirmed that the common law does not recognise a duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric injury to persons who are not directly involved in the alleged wrongdoing, particularly where the harm arises from the investigation of criminal conduct. The Court distinguished the present cases from those where a duty of care might arise in relation to the negligent causing of physical injury or psychiatric injury to a direct victim.

The appeals were accordingly dismissed.