Tame v State of New South Wales S83/2001

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *Tame v State of New South Wales*. The appellant, Ms Tame, sought damages for psychiatric injury allegedly suffered as a result of the respondent's negligence. The respondent, the State of New South Wales, had incorrectly recorded a blood alcohol reading in a police report concerning Ms Tame's husband, which led to him being wrongly charged with a driving offence. Ms Tame claimed that this error caused her to suffer a psychiatric illness.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent owed a duty of care to Ms Tame, and if so, whether that duty had been breached, leading to her psychiatric injury. Specifically, the court had to consider the principles governing the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric injury in negligence, particularly in circumstances where the plaintiff was not directly involved in the negligent act but was a witness to its consequences or the aftermath. The court also had to determine whether the psychiatric injury suffered by Ms Tame was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the respondent's actions.

The High Court, by majority, held that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to Ms Tame. The majority reasoned that the law has been reluctant to extend liability for pure psychiatric injury beyond situations where the plaintiff is a direct victim of the negligent conduct or a close relative who witnesses the event or its immediate aftermath. The court found that the psychiatric injury suffered by Ms Tame was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the respondent's negligence in recording the blood alcohol reading. The court emphasised that the chain of causation was too remote and that the respondent could not have reasonably foreseen that its administrative error would lead to Ms Tame suffering a psychiatric disorder.

The appeal was dismissed.