Sullivan v Moody: Foreseeability of injury is not enough to found a duty of care in negligence - but should it be?

In a series of cases out of South Australia, the courts have concluded that professionals dealing with children who might have suffered sexual abuse owe no duty of care to potential suspects of that abuse, including parents. Therefore, an incorrect accusation, even if it is based on the grossest negligence and leads to devastating consequences, can never be a ground for recourse in negligence. This note argues that it would be preferable to address the various policy issues surrounding such cases (conflicting duties to children and potential suspects, potential for defensive practice) at the stage of breach rather than duty. Exclusion at the duty stage prevents plaintiffs from fully telling their story and detracts from the corrective justice aim of tort law.