Jovanovic v The Law Society of Tasmania & Ors (No 2)

[2003] TASSC 65

Supreme Court of Tasmania

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Strike out application
4. › Whether amended statement of claim complies with rules of court
5. › Whether amended statement of claim discloses any viable cause of action
6. › Whether defects incurable
7. › Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r 78
1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Public authorities
5. › Whether statutory body owes duty of care to complainant in exercise of regulatory functions
6. › Whether ASIC owes duty of care to company director in conduct of investigations
1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Police and prosecutors
5. › Public policy immunity from negligence actions
6. › Malicious prosecution
7. › Whether proceedings must have terminated favourably before action lies
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Appropriate remedy
4. › Whether grievance against statutory body's failure to investigate sounds in administrative law rather than damages in tort

Quick Take

A complaint against a statutory regulatory body (such as a law society) for failure to investigate complaints sounds in administrative law, not in an action for damages in tort. ASIC owes no duty of care to a company director in respect of the institution or conduct of investigations into the company. Police and prosecutors enjoy public policy immunity from negligence actions, and malicious prosecution requires the proceedings to have terminated in the plaintiff's favour.