Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540
Tort; Negligence; the duty of care; factors to be taken into account.
Facts: The Barclay Company farmed oysters in Wallis Lake, New South Wales . In 1996 heavy rainfall increased the risk of contamination in the lake, but despite this the company continued to harvest and sell their oysters. Ryan ate some of these oysters and as a result contracted the hepatitis A virus with which the oysters were contaminated. Ryan claimed damages not only from Graham Barclay Oysters, but also from the New South Wales government. Ryan alleged the government owed him a duty of care because they had the power to supervise and control the oyster-growing industry in New South Wales.
Issue: Did the New South Wales government owe Ryan a duty of care in relation to the possibility of harm from contaminated oysters?
Decision: The government did not owe such a duty of care to Ryan.
Reason: The existence of a duty of care depended on the nature of the New South Wales government's control of the Barclay Company's operations. The court drew a distinction between the general power of a government, which does not in itself give a government the necessary control to create a duty of care, and the existence of a statutory management responsibility or control, which may be sufficient to create a duty of care. It was held that, in this case, the government did not have management responsibility or control of the oyster industry and therefore did not owe Ryan a duty of care in relation to the possibility of contaminated oysters.
Note: There are now legislative provisions which require courts to consider additional factors when determining whether a statutory (government) authority owes a duty of care.