TORT — Negligence — duty of care — statutory authority — Murray-Darling Basin Authority established under the Water Act 2007 (Cth) — river system to be operated in the public interest — Authority’s functions include executing the agreement between States for sharing the water between the States — Authority required to operate in the face of conflicts — duty alleged to be owed to private irrigators — statutory framework does not erect or facilitate a sufficient relationship between the Authority and private irrigators — duty of care to some private irrigators would distort the focus of the statutory framework — alleged duty would be incongruous with the statutory framework
TORT — Negligence — duty of care — pure economic loss — novel case — assumption of responsibility — salient features — reasonable foreseeability — actual foresight — identification of the risks of harm — control over the risks of harm and vulnerability — no specific reliance — no indeterminacy — equivalent duties of care would be owed to others — no assumption of responsibility — salient features do not warrant imposition of duty of care to avoid pure economic loss
TORT — Negligence — alleged breach of duty in the conduct of river operations — whether failure to take precautions which a reasonable person in the Authority’s position would have taken — no breach of duty
TORT — Negligence — alleged breach of duty in the conduct of commercial negotiations for access to privately-owned infrastructure — no breach of duty
Quick Take
1A statutory authority established to operate a river system in the public interest under a cooperative federal framework centred on delivering State water entitlements does not owe a common law duty of care to avoid pure economic loss to individual holders of State-issued water entitlements, because such a duty would be incongruous with the statutory framework by distorting the authority's independent role in balancing competing risks and State interests
2Where a statutory authority must balance inherently conflicting operational risks (here, system shortfall versus spill) in delivering entitlements to multiple States with potentially divergent interests, the prospect that equivalent duties of care would be owed to multiple groups with conflicting interests reinforces the finding of incongruity, even where the liability to any single class would not be indeterminate
3For choice of law purposes, where a Commonwealth statutory authority's allegedly negligent decisions were made at its workplace in the ACT as part of a centralised, nationally-focused function directing actions across multiple States, the tort was in substance committed in the ACT, and the ACT civil liability legislation applies via s 64 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) notwithstanding s 27 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth)
Case Details
Citation[2026] NSWSC 1036
CourtNSWSC
JurisdictionNew South Wales
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.