Hamcor Pty Ltd v Queensland

The Ipp Report recommendation that for claims for personal injury and death arising from the negligent performance or non-performance of a public function based upon a policy decision, could not establish negligence unless the public authority was so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority in the same position would have made it, was adopted in different ways by all jurisdictions except South Australia and the Northern Territory.1 This introduced the public law concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness to civil liability which caused much academic debate.2 Section 36 of the Queensland provides...

Once more into the mire, dear friends : determining the existence of a duty of care in negligence

There were signs in the 1997 High Court decision in Hill v Van Erp that the different members of the bench were beginning to move in the same direction when it came to the tort equivalent of the search for the Holy Grail, a common approach to the determination of the existence of a duty of care in negligence. However, the court's subsequent decision in Perre v Apand signaled a slide back to uncertainty with the seven judges favouring five different approaches. This Note examines those five approaches in the search for guidance for those at the "coalface" - litigants, their legal advisers and trial judges.

Medical negligence, causation and liability for non-disclosure of risk : a post-wallace framework and critique

Through an examination of Wallace v Kam, this article considers and evaluates the law of causation in the specific context of a medical practitioner’s duty to provide information to patients concerning material risks of treatment. To supply a contextual background for the analysis which follows, Part II summarises the basic principles of causation law, while Part III provides an overview of the case and the reasoning adopted in the decisions at first instance and on appeal. With particular emphasis upon the reasoning in the courts of appeal, Part IV then examines the implications of the case in the context of other jurisprudence in this field and, in so doing, provides a framework for a structured consideration of causation issues in future non-disclosure cases under the Australian civil liability legislation. As will become clear, Wallace was fundamentally decided on the basis of policy reasoning centred upon the purpose behind the legal duty violated. Although the plurality in Rogers v Whitaker rejected the utility of expressions such as ‘the patient’s right of self-determination’ in this context, some Australian jurisprudence may be thought to frame the practitioner’s duty to warn in terms of promoting a patient’s autonomy, or right to decide whether to submit to treatment proposed. Accordingly, the impact of Wallace upon the protection of this right, and the interrelation between it and the duty to warn’s purpose, is investigated. The analysis in Part IV also evaluates the courts’ reasoning in Wallace by questioning the extent to which Wallace’s approach to liability and causal connection in non-disclosure of risk cases: depends upon the nature and classification of the risk(s) in question; and can be reconciled with the way in which patients make decisions. Finally, Part V adopts a comparative approach by considering whether the same decision might be reached if Wallace was determined according to English law.

Professional indemnity insurance, performance and pre-emptive negligence: The impact of ‘non-claims’

As part of Australian licensing requirements professional valuers are required to maintain a level of professional indemnity insurance. A core feature of any insurance cover is that the insured has an obligation to notify their insurer of both actual and potential claims. An actual claim clearly will impact upon future policies and premiums paid. Notification of a potential claim, whether or not the notification crystallises into an actual claim, also can have an impact upon the insured’s claims history and premiums. The Global Financial Crisis continues to impact upon business practices and land transactions both directly and indirectly. The Australian valuation profession is not exempt from this impact. One example of this ongoing impact is reflected in a worrying practice engaged in by some financial institutions in respect of their loan portfolios. That is, even though the mortgagor is not in default, some institutions are pre-emptively issuing notices of demand regarding potential losses. Further, in some instances such demands are based only on mass appraisal valuations without specific consideration being given to the individual lot in question. The author examines the impact of this practice for the valuation profession and seeks to provide guidance for the appropriate handling of such demands.

Legal mechanisms for maximising community engagement with formal evacuation messaging: How well are these understood?

Study/Objective This program of research examines the effectiveness of legal mechanisms as motivators to maximise engagement and compliance with evacuation messages. This study is based on the understanding that the presence of legislative requirements, as well as sanctions and incentives encapsulated in law, can have a positive impact in achieving compliance. Our objective is to examine whether the current Australian legal frameworks, which incorporate evacuation during disasters, are an effective structure that is properly understood by those who enforce and those who are required to comply. Background In Australia, most jurisdictions have enacted legislation that encapsulates the power to evacuate and the ability to enforce compliance, either by the use of force or imposition of penalty. However, citizens still choose to not evacuate. Methods This program of research incorporates theoretical and doctrinal methodologies for reviewing literature and legislation in the Australia context. The aim of the research is to determine whether further clarity is required to create an understanding of the powers to evacuate, as well as greater public awareness of these powers. Results & Conclusion Legislators suggest that powers of evacuation can be ineffective if they are impractical to enforce. In Australia, there may also be confusion about from which legislative instrument the power to evacuate derives, and therefore whether there is a corresponding ability to enforce compliance through the use of force or imposition of a penalty. Equally, communities may lack awareness and understanding of the powers of agencies to enforce compliance. We seek to investigate whether this is the case, and whether even if greater awareness existed, it would act as an incentive to comply.

Valuers, liability and insurance obligations revisited

- Overview of negligence from the valuer’s perspective - Consideration of defences - Impact of lender conduct - Insurance obligations and impact for the valuer

The ghost in the machine: Legal challenges of neural interface devices

Neural interface devices and the melding of mind and machine, challenge the law in determining where civil liability for injury, damage or loss should lie. The ability of the human mind to instruct and control these devices means that in a negligence action against a person with a neural interface device, determining the standard of care owed by him or her will be of paramount importance. This article considers some of the factors that may influence the court’s determination of the appropriate standard of care to be applied in this situation, leading to the conclusion that a new standard of care might evolve.

Natural hazards and land use planning: How resilient must a landowner be?

The past decade has seen an increase in the occurrence of natural hazards and the experience in Australia has led to a reconsideration of the planning for natural hazards by government and to the adoption of a whole-of-nation resilience-based approach to disaster management. A key component of creating community resilience is the integration of disaster management with government and community strategic planning in relation to the social, built, economic and natural environments. Joint responsibility of government and the community for ‘land use planning systems and building control arrangements [which] reduce, as far as is practicable, community exposure to unreasonable risks from known hazards’, is a critical element of a resilient community. As the responsibility for the implementation of land use planning policies in Australia is generally with local governments, this paper will examine whether, in light of improved predictive technology, the failure of a local government to adequately foresee and make provision for a known hazard will give rise to liability for damage or loss of property caused by that hazard.

The issue of consent: For the plaintiff or defendant to prove in trespass to person?

In White v Johnston1 the vexed question of whether it is for a plaintiff to prove lack of consent to a trespass to person or for the defendant to establish consent as defence was considered. The court also considered the principles of assessing an award of exemplary damages...

Don't argue with the ref! - Legal liability for incorrect decisions of sports' officials

This paper continues the conversation from recent articles examining potential remedies available for incorrect decisions by sports officials. In particular, this article focuses on bringing an action against an official in negligence for pure economic loss. Using precedent cases, it determines that such an action would have a low chance of success, as a duty of care would be difficult to establish. Even if that could be overcome, an aggrieved player or team would still face further hurdles at the stages of breach, causation and defences. The article concludes by proposing some options to further reduce the small risk of liability to officials.

What happens on the field stays on the field? – Battery in sport

This article provides an overview of battery, with a particular focus on the role that consent plays in contact sports. The limits of implied consent in sport will also be discussed, followed by a brief overview of other relevant defences. Finally, issues of damages and vicarious liability will be addressed.

The Australian litigation landscape - Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and general dentistry (oral surgery procedures): An analysis of litigation cases

Background: There are persistent concerns about litigation in the dental and medical professions. These concerns arise in a setting where general dentists are more frequently undertaking a wider range of oral surgery procedures, potentially increasing legal risk. Methods: Judicial cases dealing with medical negligence in the fields of general dentistry (oral surgery procedure) and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery were located using the three main legal databases. Relevant cases were analysed to determine the procedures involved, the patients’ claims of injury, findings of negligence, and damages awarded. A thematic analysis of the cases was undertaken to determine trends. Results: Fifteen cases over a twenty-year period were located across almost all Australian jurisdictions (eight cases involved general dentists; seven cases involved Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons). Eleven of the fifteen cases involved determinations of whether or not the practitioner had failed in their duty of care; negligence was found in six cases. Eleven of the fifteen cases related to molar extractions (eight specifically to third molar). Conclusions: Dental and medical practitioners wanting to manage legal risk should have regard to circumstances arising in judicial cases. Adequate warning of risks is critical, as is offering referral in appropriate cases. Pre-operative radiographs, good medical records, and processes to ensure appropriate follow-up are also important.

Medical negligence, causation and 'exceptional cases' under the civil liability legislation

Under the civil liability legislation enacted in most Australian jurisdictions, factual causation will be established if, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant can prove that the defendant's negligence was 'a necessary condition of the occurrence of the [claimant's] harm'. Causation will then be satisfied by showing that the harm would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's breach of their duty of care. However, in an exceptional or appropriate case, sub-section 2 of the legislation provides that if the 'but for' test is not met, factual causation may instead be determined in accordance with other 'established principles'. In such a case, 'the court is to consider (amongst other relevant things) whether or not and why responsibility for the harm should be imposed' on the negligent party.

Questions about multidisciplinary teams

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) involves health professionals from a range of disciplines working together as a team (a multidisciplinary team – MDT) to deliver comprehensive care that addresses as many of a patient's needs as possible. Writing in 2011, Wilcoxon and others concluded: ‘Multidisciplinary care is accepted as best practice in cancer treatment planning and care.’ Yet their report (of the national audit of multidisciplinary cancer care in Australia) indicated that two-thirds of the surveyed hospitals did not have a MDT. Further, they found that where teams did exist, one-third of patients were not told that their case would be discussed by the team; the MDT-recommended treatment plan was not included in the patient’s record one-quarter of the time; and less than 1 per cent of teams reported routine attendance by the tumour-specific minimum core team. There is sparse case authority as to the potential medico-legal consequences of MDC by MDTs. This article raises five questions about legal aspects of MDC for consideration. The questions are not limited to cancer care, as MDTs are increasingly used in other areas of medicine.

The Statutory Defence(s) of 'peer professional opinion'

In the wake of the GFC and with ever increasing consumer-protection-related laws, clients are more aware of their rights and your obligations as a professional valuer. They also are more likely to take legal action if, as a result of their reliance on a valuation, they suffer a financial loss. In some Australian jurisdictions, in response to a claim of negligence, the professional valuer may be able to raise a professional practice defence under civil liability legislation. This article considers the nature of this statutory defence, what is required to rely upon it and in which jurisdictions it applies.