# Duty of care in novel cases: *Sullivan v Moody*
URL: https://www.barristerai.com.au/principles/sullivan-v-moody
Last updated: 2026-11-09
Publisher: Barrister AI

Australian law has no single formula for deciding whether a duty of care exists in a new category of case. *Sullivan v Moody* (2001) 207 CLR 562 explains why, and points courts to the features of the relationship that matter.

## In short

- Foreseeability of harm is necessary but not sufficient for a duty of care.
- The High Court rejected proximity as a unifying test, and did not adopt the English three-stage test from *Caparo Industries plc v Dickman* [1990] 2 AC 605.
- A duty will not be imposed where it would be incoherent with another legal duty or statutory function.
- Courts reason from the salient features of the relationship, often using the list in *Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar* [2009] NSWCA 258.

## The case

Fathers suspected of child sexual abuse sued the doctors and social workers who had examined their children and reported on the allegations. In *Sullivan v Moody* [2001] HCA 59 the High Court held that no duty of care was owed to the suspected parent. A duty to the suspect would conflict with the professionals’ duty to protect the child, and with the statutory scheme under which they acted.

## Coherence

The decisive reason was incoherence: the law should not impose a duty that would pull a person in a direction inconsistent with another duty they owe, or with the purpose of a statutory scheme. Coherence reasoning is now routinely applied to public authorities and professionals acting under statute.

## The salient features approach

In novel cases, intermediate appellate courts reason from a multi-factor list of salient features. In *Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar* [2009] NSWCA 258 Allsop P collected them, including:

- the foreseeability of harm and its nature;
- the degree and nature of control able to be exercised by the defendant;
- the plaintiff’s vulnerability, and their ability to protect themselves;
- the degree of reliance, and any assumption of responsibility;
- the proximity of the parties;
- the existence of a category of relationship in which a duty is recognised;
- the nature of the activity, and the content of any statutory or other legal obligations;
- consistency and coherence with other legal principles, and policy considerations.

## Frequently asked questions

### What test for duty of care applies in Australia?

There is no single test. In established categories the duty is recognised; in novel cases courts reason from the salient features of the relationship, with foreseeability necessary but not sufficient, and duties incoherent with other obligations rejected.

### Does Australia use the Caparo test?

No. In Sullivan v Moody the High Court declined to adopt the three-stage test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.

## Sources

- Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59; (2001) 207 CLR 562: https://www.barristerai.com.au/case/2001/hca/59
- Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258: https://www.barristerai.com.au/case/2009/nswca/258

General information, not legal advice. Editorial policy: https://www.barristerai.com.au/editorial-policy