QUINTANO & ORS v THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ANOR [2002] NSWSC 766

QUINTANO & ORS v THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ANOR [2002] NSWSC 766

On the pleadings, the second respondent's acts formed part of a police investigation, and the appellants could not avoid the significance of the concession made below. Applying the public policy principle concerning police investigative conduct, including the risk of conflicting obligations between the interests of the plaintiffs and those of the first plaintiff's wife, no duty of care was available. The pleaded Police Rules 1977 and Instructions did not create a separate duty and, even if relevant, concerned how investigative procedures were to be carried out and therefore remained within the Hill principle. The pleaded claim was therefore doomed to failure and was properly dismissed...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Master in Negligence Proceedings / Appeal Against Order Dismissing the Statement of Claim on Summary Dismissal Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'police Investigations' 'common Law Immunity' 'summary Dismissal' 'concession at Trial' 'police Rules 1977 and Instructions']
['negligence' 'tort Law' 'civil Procedure' 'police Liability'] ['duty of Care' 'police Investigations' 'common Law Immunity' 'summary Dismissal' 'concession at Trial' 'police Rules 1977 and Instructions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Master in Negligence Proceedings / Appeal Against Order Dismissing the Statement of Claim on Summary Dismissal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Master erred in holding that the plaintiffs' negligence claim against the defendants was doomed to failure and dismissing the Statement of Claim." "Whether the second respondent's conduct formed part of a police investigation." 'Whether police owed the plaintiffs a common law duty of care in relation to the use of information supplied during the investigation.' 'Whether the pleaded Police Rules 1977 and Instructions created or supported a duty outside the common law immunity for police investigative conduct.' "Whether the appellants could avoid the concession made before the Master that, if the conduct was an investigation, the defendants' motion had to succeed."]

Ratio Decidendi

On the pleadings, the second respondent's acts formed part of a police investigation, and the appellants could not avoid the significance of the concession made below. Applying the public policy principle concerning police investigative conduct, including the risk of conflicting obligations between the interests of the plaintiffs and those of the first plaintiff's wife, no duty of care was available. The pleaded Police Rules 1977 and Instructions did not create a separate duty and, even if relevant, concerned how investigative procedures were to be carried out and therefore remained within the Hill principle. The pleaded claim was therefore doomed to failure and was properly dismissed...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The plaintiffs/appellants are to pay the defendants/respondents' costs."]