Gideon Haigh, brilliant as always.
This book is a biography of HV Evatt’s time on the High Court, centred around his famous dissenting judgment in Chester v Waverley Municipal Council (1939) 62 CLR 1.
The opening chapter may take one by surprise: the initial ‘brilliant boy’ referred to is not Evatt, but Maxie Chester, a seven-year-old child who drowned in a flooded ditch in Waverley, Sydney. His mother, Glenda, saw her son pulled from the mud, and never recovered, suffering severe mental health issues. The tradegy could have only occured because of the negligence of the council, they clearly would have been liable to Max. But what about Glenda? She was a bystander, she suffered no physical injury; only psychological.
As those who have studied torts would know, the Court held the Council was not liable to Glenda for ‘nervous shock’; pure psychiatric injury. But Evatt J dissented, arguing forcefully that the Council’s duty of care necessarily extends to secondary victims, going beyond the physical injury to Max but also to the reasonable foreseeable psychological effects on parties such as rescuers and family members. As we now know, Evatt’s approach has been vindicated. The High Court has said Evatt’s approach was correct, and the common law now recognises claims for reasonably foreseeable psychiatric injury as a result of another’s physical harm.
Haigh’s book brings humanity to life on the High Court bench. I, for one, have never had much interest in the realms of torts and private law - and the book is about much more than Chester’s case. But Haigh shines light on an otherwise underappreciated chapter of Australian history. Evatt is generally spoken about for his, not so successful, political career. Yet as Haigh shows, Evatt too was a ‘brilliant boy’, admired throughout the common law world for his literary and humanitarian approach to jurisprudence.