Section 112 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) requires not only that the claimant have standing to bring proceedings against the public authority, but also that the claimant could have obtained relief compelling the authority to exercise its regulatory function; standing alone is insufficient to overcome the statutory immunity (per Charlesworth J, Loukas-Karlsson J agreeing; Elkaim J contra). Officers exercising discretionary statutory powers to manage risks created by third parties (such as animal control officers) do not owe a common law duty of care to persons at risk, where the statutory regime does not impose mandatory duties and the officers have not voluntarily assumed responsibility. The words 'all care that is reasonable in the circumstances' in s 168 of the Wrongs Act do not import a higher standard of care than the general negligence standard under Ch 4.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.