The Role of the Judiciary in Earth Jurisprudence : An Analysis of Judicial Approaches to Standing in Climate Change and Environmental Justice Litigation

The role of the judiciary in common law systems is to create law, interpret law and uphold the law. As such decisions by courts on matters related to ecologically sustainable development, natural resource use and management and climate change make an important contribution to earth jurisprudence. There are examples where judicial decisions further the goals of earth jurisprudence and examples where decisions go against the principles of earth jurisprudence. This presentation will explore judicial approaches to standing in Australia and America. The paper will explore two trends in each jurisdiction. Approaches by American courts to standing will be examined in reference to climate change and environmental justice litigation. While Australian approaches to standing will be examined in the context of public interest litigation and environmental criminal negligence cases. The presentation will draw some conclusions about the role of standing in each of these cases and implications of this for earth jurisprudence.

Pleading intention

This article considers the scope of the application of the civil liability legislation, an issue which is still being clarified by the courts, despite the passage of some ten years since the enactment of the non-uniform civil liability legislation across Australia. The introduction of the civil liability legislation has made more important the pleading of intention, in addition to negligence, so as to maximise damages awards. This involves pleading torts traditionally referred to as intentional torts – particularly trespass to the person. Such an approach is attractive for plaintiffs because, in several jurisdictions, tort claims which plead intention have been excluded from the operation of the legislative restrictions on the quantum of damages awards, and prohibitions on exemplary and aggravated damages. This approach reflects the policy that those who intend the harmful consequences of their actions should be held fully responsible.

Calligraphy and causation : two obstetric management cases - Hirst v Sydney South West Area Health and King v Western Sydney local health network

Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the context of obstetric management have highlighted firstly, the importance of keeping legible, accurate and detailed medical records; and secondly, the challenges faced by those seeking to establish causation, particularly where epidemiological evidence is relied upon...

Honesty about adverse event : more honoured in the breach than in the observance?

Part of the chapter: "Sale of Sperm, Health Records, Minimally Conscious States, and Duties of Candour" Although ethical obligations and good medical practice guidelines clearly contemplate open disclosure, there is a dearth of authority as to the nature and extent of a legal duty on Australian doctors to disclose adverse events to patients.

What the plaintiff would have done in informed consent cases

Both at common law and under the various civil liability acts, in deciding liability for breach of duty, the plaintiff always bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, any fact relevant to the issue of causation. For plaintiffs in medical negligence claims founded on negligent failure to provide sufficient information (informed consent cases), this onus involves persuading the court to make a favourable determination as to what a particular patient would have done (from a subjective perspective) in the hypothetical situation of the defendant not being negligent (that is, in the event that the medical practitioner had provided sufficient information to the patient)

Assessment of damages for wrongful birth and consolidation in advance care directives

The recent decision of Waller v James involved a claim by the plaintiff parents for damages for wrongful birth against the defendant doctor, Dr James, a gynaecologist with a practice in infertility and IVF procedures, who had been consulted by the plaintiffs. The second plaintiff, Mr Waller suffered an inherited anti-thrombin deficiency (ATD), a condition which results in a propensity for the blood to clot, at least in adults. Dr James subsequently recommended IVF treatment. The first plaintiff, Mrs Waller became pregnant after the first cycle of IVF treatment. Her son Keeden was born on 10 August 2000 with a genetic anti-thrombin deficiency. Keeden was released from hospital on 14 August 2000. However, he was brought back to the hospital the next day with cerebral thrombosis (CSVT). As a result of the thrombosis, he suffered permanent brain damage, cerebral palsy and related disabilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was in breach of contract and his common law duty of care to the plaintiffs in failing to inform them, or cause them to be informed, of the hereditary aspects of ATD. They further alleged that, had they been properly informed, they would not have proceeded to conceive a child using the male plaintiff’s sperm and therefore avoided the harm that had befallen them. The plaintiffs claimed damages to compensate them for their losses, including psychiatric and physical injuries and the costs of having, raising and caring for Keeden. The defendant was held to be not liable in negligence by Justice Hislop of the Supreme Court of New South Wales because a finding was made on medical causation which was adverse to the plaintiffs claim.

Court finds solicitor in breach of fiduciary duty owed to client but loss not caused by the breach

A solicitor owes fiduciary obligations to his or her client including the obligations of loyalty and disclosure. The Court of Appeal in Mantonella Pty Ltd v Thompson (2009) 255 ALR 367; [2009] QCA 80; BC200902311 recently considered when the fiduciary duty owed by a solicitor to a client is breached and the consequent liability of the solicitor...

Do palliative care health professionals settle for low level evidence?

The findings of the recent independent review of the UK Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP)1, following substantial concerns raised by members of the public and health professionals found that the implementation of the LCP is often associated with poor care1. The Neuberger Report highlighted the complexity of various ethical, safety, clinical practice and negligence issues associated with pathway usage and how, despite technological advances, diagnosing dying continues to be challenging. The UK Government’s decision to phase out the LCP as policy following these findings, has generated considerable debate both within and beyond the UK. However, another key issue raised by the Neuberger’s report is the issue of the palliative care community’s perceived willingness to readily adopt new clinical practices in the absence of evidence. It is this translational issue that this editorial explores.

An examination of the liability of a construction contract certifier who gets it wrong

Construction contracts often provide that decisions under the contract will be made by a certifier. This paper reviews the liability issues when a certifier makes a mistake. We do that in light of recent pronouncements by the High Court of Australia and the New South Wales Court of Appeal on negligence. We look at this question in the context of traditional construction contract arrangements and also consider the implications for Public Private Partnerships and the typical contract arrangements entered into to facilitate these transactions.

The landlord's duty and unsafe premises

Case note on Sheehy v Hobbs [2012]. It is well established that a landlord owes a tenant a duty of care to “take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of injury to their prospective tenants and members of their household”.1 What often arises is the question of how far the scope of that duty extends. In Sheehy v Hobbs [2012] QSC 333 the plaintiff was injured when she fell down a flight of internal stairs of the townhouse she leased from the defendants. The plaintiff claimed damages for a breach of duty owed to her in negligence, and also alleged breaches of the duties owed to her pursuant to s 103 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 (Qld) and her tenancy agreement.

Failure to administer a drug and causation

Case note on King v Western Sydney Local Health Network In King v Western Sydney Local Health Network [2013] NSWCA 162 the appellant sought damages for the severe physical and intellectual disability she suffered as a result of foetal varicella syndrome (FVS) caused by her mother contracting varicella (chickenpox) in the second trimester of her pregnancy. The mother had been exposed to the virus and sought advice from a doctor at Blacktown Hospital as she had not had the virus herself and therefore did not possess immunity. In such circumstances at the time, the standard medical practice was to offer the mother varicellazoster immunoglobulin (VZIG) to boost her defence to the virus. The appellant’s mother however was not offered this treatment and contracted chickenpox resulting the appellant’s condition...

Vulnerability held not to be pre-requisite for establishing a duty of care in claims of pure economic Loss

Case note Apache Energy Ltd v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (No 2) [2013] In 2011, headlines were made when Alcoa sued Apache Energy and its partners for $158 million, a loss it claimed was a consequence of Apache Energy failing to adequately inspect and maintain the gas pipelines that supplied the gas used by Alcoa in its business. As the loss was not a consequence of any property damage or injury to Alcoa, the loss is characterised as pure economic loss...

Health Care and the Law [Fifth Edition]

"Fully updated to reflect the rapid pace of change in the health law areas. Explains the legal process as it relates to the health care professional."--Libraries Australia. Table of Contents Part I. Introductory concepts -- 1. What is law -- 2. The legal structure -- 3. The legal process -- Part II. Patient relationships -- 4. Consent to health care by a competent adult -- 5. Consent to health care by a legally incompetent person -- 6. Negligence -- 7. Patient information and privacy -- 8. Patients' property -- 9. Contract -- Part III. Employment -- 10. Contracts to provide health care services -- 011. Accidents and injuries related to health care --12. Registration and practice --13. Drugs --14. Criminal law and health care --15. State involvement in birth and death: registration and coronial inquiries --16. State involvement in threats to health or welfare --17. Human tissue transplants and reproductive technology --18. Expanding recognition of human rights --19. Decision making, law and ethics: a discussion.