Heptonstall v Gaskin & Ors [2004] NSWSC 80

Heptonstall v Gaskin & Ors [2004] NSWSC 80

The amended statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the third defendant. No duty of care exists at law for the Department of Education and Training and its officers in the conduct of investigations and disciplinary proceedings where the statutory scheme is protective of students, and such a duty would create inconsistent obligations. Implied contractual terms pleaded are also struck out for lacking business efficacy and being inconsistent with statutory duties. Leave to further amend is granted regarding implied terms in contract.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From a Decision of Master Harrison; Hearing and Judgment in the Supreme Court of NSW Common Law Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; orders of Master Harrison confirmed
Legal Topics
['duty of Care in Disciplinary Investigations' 'strike Out Pleadings' 'implied Terms in Employment Contracts' 'psychiatric Injury' 'procedural Fairness' 'contractual Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence']
['employment Law' 'administrative Law' 'tort Law'] ['duty of Care in Disciplinary Investigations' 'strike Out Pleadings' 'implied Terms in Employment Contracts' 'psychiatric Injury' 'procedural Fairness' 'contractual Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence']

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 / Appeal From a Decision of Master Harrison; Hearing and Judgment in the Supreme Court of NSW Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a duty of care exists in disciplinary investigations by employer under the Teaching Services Act 1980' 'Whether implied terms of fairness, diligence, and expedition should be implied in contract between teacher and Department of Education' 'Whether the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the third defendant. No duty of care exists at law for the Department of Education and Training and its officers in the conduct of investigations and disciplinary proceedings where the statutory scheme is protective of students, and such a duty would create inconsistent obligations. Implied contractual terms pleaded are also struck out for lacking business efficacy and being inconsistent with statutory duties. Leave to further amend is granted regarding implied terms in contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; orders of Master Harrison confirmed

Orders

  • ["Paragraphs 35 to 37 inclusive of plaintiff's amended statement of claim struck out" "Paragraphs 32 to 34 inclusive of plaintiff's amended statement of claim struck out" 'Leave granted to plaintiff to apply to further amend statement of claim regarding implied terms of contract with third defendant' "Liberty to...