MONIE v COMMONWEALTH of AUSTRALIA [2003] NSWSC 1141

MONIE v COMMONWEALTH of AUSTRALIA [2003] NSWSC 1141

The CES did not owe a duty of care requiring it to check or disclose the criminal history of job applicants to prospective employers under the circumstances. Even if such a duty existed, there was no breach, as the CES functioned solely as a referral agency and the plaintiffs were aware of the jobseekers' disadvantaged status. There was also a break in causation, as information about Winsor's criminal background was independently communicated to the plaintiffs, who failed to pursue it. Therefore, the defendant is not liable in negligence.

Parties
Plaintiff: Peter John Monie; Plaintiff: Jennifer Monie; Plaintiff: Samuel Monie; Defendant: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
verdict for the defendant
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Psychiatric Injury, Failure to Disclose Criminal Record, Agency Liability, Personal Injury, Economic Loss
Tort Law Negligence Duty of Care Causation Psychiatric Injury Failure to Disclose Criminal Record Agency Liability Personal Injury +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter John Monie

Plaintiff

Jennifer Monie

Plaintiff

Samuel Monie

Plaintiff

Commonwealth of Australia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commonwealth of Australia (through the CES) owed the plaintiffs a duty of care in referring Darren Winsor for employment without disclosing his criminal record
  2. 2 Whether any such duty was breached by the failure to disclose criminal history
  3. 3 Whether any breach caused the plaintiffs' injuries (causation)

Ratio Decidendi

The CES did not owe a duty of care requiring it to check or disclose the criminal history of job applicants to prospective employers under the circumstances. Even if such a duty existed, there was no breach, as the CES functioned solely as a referral agency and the plaintiffs were aware of the jobseekers' disadvantaged status. There was also a break in causation, as information about Winsor's criminal background was independently communicated to the plaintiffs, who failed to pursue it. Therefore, the defendant is not liable in negligence.

Court Disposition

verdict for the defendant

Orders

  • Verdict for the defendant in the action by all three plaintiffs against the defendant.
  • Liberty to the parties to make further submissions in relation to interest rates and out of pocket expenses on which findings have been made.