Tame v Morgan

In *Tame v Morgan*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the alleged negligent misstatement by the appellant, a police officer, to the respondent, who had been involved in a motor vehicle accident. The respondent claimed that the appellant's incorrect advice regarding the time limit for reporting the accident led her to believe she had more time than she actually did, resulting in her failing to report the accident within the statutory period. This failure, she contended, caused her to suffer psychiatric injury.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent in providing the information about the reporting period, and if so, whether that duty had been breached, leading to the respondent's psychiatric harm. Specifically, the court had to determine if the appellant's conduct, in giving erroneous advice about a statutory time limit, fell within the scope of a duty of care that could give rise to liability for pure psychiatric injury.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, ultimately found that the appellant did not owe a duty of care to the respondent in the circumstances. The court reasoned that the respondent's claim was not one of negligent misstatement in the traditional sense, but rather a claim for economic loss (the inability to bring a claim for damages arising from the accident) which then manifested as psychiatric injury. The court held that the appellant's role as a police officer investigating the accident did not, in itself, create a duty of care to provide accurate advice on statutory time limits that would protect the respondent from psychiatric harm. The court distinguished this situation from cases where a duty of care might arise in relation to the provision of information, emphasizing that the appellant's actions were not causative of the respondent's psychiatric injury in a manner that attracted legal liability.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower court.