Gratuitous services - Civil Liability Act 2003 s59

The article considers the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Kritz v King [2006] QCA 351, which examined for the first time s59 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) in relation to claims for damages for gratuitous services.

Mental harm, rescuers and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

At common law, a duty of care may be owed to a claimant who suffers nervous shock or pure mental harm due to witnessing, or hearing about, physical injury caused to another due to a defendant’s negligence. “Pure mental harm” is the ‘impairment of a person’s mental condition’ that is not suffered as a consequence of any other kind of personal injury to them. However, as many accidents have the potential to create a wide circle of mental suffering to bystanders, family members or others not physically injured themselves, it has traditionally been ‘thought impolitic that everybody so affected should be able to recover damages from the tortfeasor.’ ‘To allow such extended recovery would stretch liability too far.’ Nevertheless, whilst adopting a restrictive approach to liability, the common law courts have recognised that a defendant might owe a duty in relation to the pure mental harm suffered by one who foreseeably attends an accident scene to rescue another from a situation created by the defendant’s negligence.

Practice and Procedure: Worker's Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s275

In Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v Sayers [2007] QSC 390 Daubney J considered the obligation imposed on a claimant under s 275 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) to provide the insurer with an authority to obtain information and documents. The decision leads to practical results.

Practice and Procedure : Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 131 and 237(1)

In Jacobs v Woolworths Limited [2010] QSC 24 Jones J was required to determine whether a worker who had lodged an application for compensation for an injury outside the time prescribed under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) was precluded from seeking common law damages for that injury. This determination depended upon the proper construction of s 131 of the Act, and what was to be understood by the words “worker who has not lodged an application for compensation for the injury” for the purpose of s 237(1)(d).

Decision examines wrongdoers and liability

In Ligon Sixty-Three Pty Ltd v ClarkeKann [2015] QSC 153 the court considered an application to join parties as defendants when it was alleged they were concurrent wrongdoers for the purpose of the proportionate liability provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act).

When two wrongs don't make it proportionate.

In Hobbs Haulage Pty Ltd v Zupps Southside Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 319 Jackson J considered the application of the concurrent liability provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).

Practice & procedure : gratuitous services

In Carroll v Coomber [2006] QDC 146 the plainliff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on September 7, 2003. Liability was admitted and it remained to assess the plaintiff's damages. In light of the date of the accident, the damages were to be assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (the act) and the Civil Liability Regulations.

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...

Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld)

On 17 March 2010, the Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld) was assented to.

Child sexual abuse and access to justice for civil claims: Time to reform the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)

In 2015, Victoria passed laws removing the time limit in which a survivor of child sexual abuse can commence a civil claim for personal injury. The law applies also to physical abuse, and to psychological injury arising from those forms of abuse. In 2016, New South Wales made almost identical legal reforms. These reforms were partly motivated by the recommendations of inquiries into institutional child abuse. Of particular relevance is that the Australian Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended in 2015 that all States and Territories remove their time limits for civil claims. This presentation explores the problems with standard time limits when applied to child sexual abuse cases (whether occurring within or beyond institutions), the scientific, ethical and legal justifications for lifting the time limits, and solutions for future law reform.

Submission to the 2012 Review of the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld)

The submission addresses matters relevant to Issues for Comment numbered 1, 3, 5, 22 and 32 of the Issues Paper released by the Transport, Housing and local Government Committee of the Queensland Parliament. It concludes by making five recommendations for consideration by the Committee.

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 - leave to appeal costs orders - appeal against substantive judgment insufficient - must be arguable case that discretion will be overturned on appeal

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in AGL Sales (Qld) Pty Ltd v Dawson Sales Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 262 provides clear direction on the Court’s expectations of a party seeking leave to appeal a costs order.This decision is likely to impact upon common practice in relation to appeals against costs orders. It sends a clear message to trial judges that they should not give leave as of course when giving a judgment in relation to costs, and that parties seeking leave under s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) should make a separate application. The application should be supported by material presenting an arguable case that the trial judge made an error in the exercise of the discretion of the kind described in House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499. A different, and interesting, aspect of this appeal is that it was the first wholly electronic civil appeal. The court-provided technology had been adopted at trial, and the Court of Appeal dispensed with any requirement for hard copy appeal record books.