Tort; Negligence; duty of care; factors to be taken into account.
Facts: Sullivan was suspected of sexually abusing his daughter. He denied the allegations, but they were investigated by a doctor who examined the child and formed the opinion she had been abused. Social workers employed by the government also investigated the case and brought proceedings against Sullivan. The Family Court decided the case in favour of Sullivan. Sullivan claimed to have suffered psychiatric and other harm as a result of the investigations that were carried out by the doctor and social workers.
Issue: The court considered whether the doctor and social workers owed Sullivan a duty of care when deciding to carry out investigations that might cause him harm.
Decision: The High Court concluded that the doctor and social workers did not owe Sullivan a duty of care.
Reason: The court found that there cannot be a duty of care that conflicts with a statutory duty to carry out investigations. This would render the law incoherent, because a conflict would arise between the duty to protect children from abuse, and any duty to avoid harm to those who are suspected of committing such abuse. Policy considerations were also relevant.