Queensland Environmental Practice Reporter 17(77) (2011/2012) Editorial

This issue begins with a paper by QUT masters student, Jenny Kortlaender, which considers the effectiveness of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in addressing global biodiversity decline. This is followed by a paper by Fiona Leddy which critically analyses international shipping in Australian waters and the approach taken by Australia laws in addressing the risks posed by ship-based oil pollution. The third paper in this issue is by Adjunct Professor Hugh Lavery, Gina Lee and Carolyn S. Sandercoe. This paper considers the ecological principles to be followed in the sustainable design of large-scale marina developments. This paper highlights the differences between the practice of landscape ecology and the design of ecological landscapes. Finally, this issue includes a summary of relevant cases from the Queensland Planning and Environment Court and Court of Appeal by Michael Walton and Ben Job.

QEPR Editorial Vol 17 Issue 78

Welcome to another issue of the Queensland Environmental Practice Reporter. This issue begins with a paper by QUT masters student, Jenny Kortlaender, which considers the effectiveness of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in addressing global biodiversity decline. This is followed by a paper by Fiona Leddy which critically analyses international shipping in Australian waters and the approach taken by Australia laws in addressing the risks posed by ship-based oil pollution. The third paper in this issue is by Adjunct Professor Hugh Lavery, Gina Lee and Carolyn S. Sandercoe. This paper considers the ecological principles to be followed in the sustainable design of large-scale marina developments. This paper highlights the differences between the practice of landscape ecology and the design of ecological landscapes...

Strategically Pleading Intentional Torts in medical cases

The opportunities and challenges faced by litigants who strategically plead intentional torts are borne out by two recent medical cases. Both arose out of dental treatment. Dean v Phung established some key principles which were clarified in White v Johnston. Before considering those two cases it is worth examining the environment in which such intentional torts claims now exist. Following the Ipp Review of the Law of Negligence, non-uniform legislative changes to the law of negligence were introduced across Australia which have imposed limitations on liability and quantum of damages in cases where a person has been injured through the fault of another. While it seems that, given the limitation of the scope of the review and recommendations to negligently caused damage, the Ipp Review reforms were meant to be limited to injury resulting from negligent acts rather than intentional torts, the extent to which the civil liability legislation applies to intentional torts differs across Australia.

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.

Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. The reversal of the onus of proof through the obvious risk sections has attempted to extend the scope of the defence of voluntary assumption of risk. There is no liability for the materialisation of an inherent risk. Presumptions and mandatory reductions for contributory negligence have attempted to reduce the liability of defendants. It is now possible for reductions of 100% for contributory negligence. Apologies can be made with no admission of legal liability to encourage them being made and thereby reduce the number of actions being commenced. The peer acceptance defence has been introduced and enacted by legislation. There is protection for good samaritans even though the Ipp Report recommended against such protection. Limitation periods have been amended. Provisions relating to mental harm have been introduced re-instating the requirement of normal fortitude and direct perception. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

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.

Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages through thresholds and caps which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

Legal liability for carbon capture and storage in Australia : where should the losses fall?

This article presents a critical analysis of the current and proposed CCS legal frameworks across a number of jurisdictions in Australia in order to examine the legal treatment of the risks of carbon leakage from CCS operations. It does so through an analysis of the statutory obligations and liability rules established under the offshore Commonwealth and Victorian regimes, and onshore Queensland and Victorian legislative frameworks. Exposure draft legislation for CCS laws in Western Australia is also examined. In considering where the losses will fall in the event of leakage, the potential tortious and statutory liabilities of private operators and the State are addressed alongside the operation of statutory protections from liability. The current legal treatment of CCS under the new Australian Carbon Pricing Mechanism is also critiqued.

Will Queensland tort reform change valuation practice and valuers liability

It has been common practice over past property boom and bust cycles in Australia for financial institutions and property owners who have suffered a loss in the property downturn to sue valuers for negligence. Damages claimed are based on the price differential between the valuation at or nearing the peak of the market and the subsequent sale in the market downturn. However, the context of valuers liability has become increasingly complex as a result of statutory reforms introduced in response to the Review of the Law of Negligence Final Report 2002), in particular the introduction of Civil Liability Acts introducing proportionate liability provisions. Legislative reforms have had some positive outcomes for Valuers, however valuers need to continue to maintain high ethical standards, independence and professionalism in valuation practice.

Legal practitioners’ negligence liability for claim investigation and advice

Nigam v Harm (No 2) [2011] WASCA 221, Western Australia Court of Appeal, 18 October 2011

Assessing the damage caused by deepwater horizon : not just another Exxon Valdez

In light of the high stakes of the deepwater horizon civil trial and the important precedent-setting role that the case will have on the assessment of future marine disasters, the methodologies underpinning the calculations of damage on both sides will be subjected to considerable scrutiny. Despite the importance of the case, however, there seems to be a pronounced lack of convergence about it in the academic literature. Contributions from scientific journals frequently make comparisons to the Ixtoc I oil spill off the coast of Mexico in 1979; the legal literature, by stark contrast, seems to be much more focused on the Exxon Valdez spill that occurred off the shores of Alaska in 1989. This paper accordingly calls for a more thorough consideration of other analogs beyond the Exxon Valdez spill—most notably, the Ixtoc I incident—in arriving at an assessment of the damage caused by the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Energy-pollution nexus for urban buildings

Since the first oil crisis in 1974, economic reasons placed energy saving among the top priorities in most industrialised countries. In the decades that followed, another, equally strong driver for energy saving emerged: climate change caused by anthropogenic emissions, a large fraction of which result from energy generation. Intrinsically linked to energy consumption and its related emissions is another problem: indoor air quality. City dwellers in industrialised nations spend over 90% of their time indoors and exposure to indoor pollutants contributes to ~2.6% of global burden of disease and nearly 2 million premature deaths per year1. Changing climate conditions, together with human expectations of comfortable thermal conditions, elevates building energy requirements for heating, cooling, lighting and the use of other electrical equipment. We believe that these changes elicit a need to understand the nexus between energy consumption and its consequent impact on indoor air quality in urban buildings. In our opinion the key questions are how energy consumption is distributed between different building services, and how the resulting pollution affects indoor air quality. The energy-pollution nexus has clearly been identified in qualitative terms; however the quantification of such a nexus to derive emissions or concentrations per unit energy consumption is still weak, inconclusive and requires forward thinking. Of course, various aspects of energy consumption and indoor air quality have been studied in detail separately, but in-depth, integrated studies of the energy-pollution nexus are hard to come by. We argue that such studies could be instrumental in providing sustainable solutions to maintain the trade-off between the energy efficiency of buildings and acceptable levels of air pollution for healthy living.

Wrongful birth : assessment of damages in 2013

More than 10 years have passed since the High Court of Australia confirmed the recoverability of damages for the cost of raising a child, in the well-known decision in Cattanach v Melchior. Yet a number of aspects of the assessment of such “wrongful birth” damages had not been the subject of a comprehensive court ruling. The recent decision in Waller v James was widely anticipated as potentially providing a comprehensive discussion of the principles relevant to the assessment of damages in wrongful birth cases. However, given a finding on causation adverse to the plaintiffs, the trial judge held that it was unnecessary to determine the quantum of damages. Justice Hislop did, however, make some comments in relation to the assessment of damages. This article focuses mostly on the argued damages issues relating to the costs of raising the child and the trial judge’s comments regarding the same. The Waller v James claim was issued before the enactment of the Health Care Liability Act 2001 (NSW) and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). Although the case was therefore decided according to the “common law”, as explained below, his Honour’s comments may be of relevance to more recent claims governed by the civil liability legislation in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia.

Justice for pollution-victims in China and Australia

The concept of environmental justice is well developed in North America, but is still at the evolutionary stage in most other jurisdictions around the globe. This paper seeks to explore two jurisdictions where incidents of environmental justice are likely to be seen in the future as a result of manufacturing and mining practices. The discussion will centre upon avenues to environmental justice for both private citizens and the public at large. The first jurisdiction considered is China, where environmental liability claims brought by Chinese citizens have increased at an annual average of 25% (Yang 2011). Manufacturing is at the core of the Chinese economy and is responsible for some of the unprecedented economic growth in the region. Less discussed are the industry impacts on water and air pollution levels and the associated implications of these pollutants on local communities. China introduced the Tort Liability Law (TLL) in 2010, which may provide avenues to justice for private citizens. The other jurisdiction considered by the paper is Australia, where the mining boom has buffered the Australian economy from the global financial crisis. There is some limited case law in Australia where private citizens have made a claim in toxic torts; however the framework is underdeveloped in terms of the significant risks facing indigenous and local communities in mining areas and also by comparison to the developments of the TLL framework in China. This paper traces the regulatory responses to the affects of major industries on communities in China and Australia. From this it examines the need for environmental justice avenues that align with rule of law principles.

Of dogs, fish, birds and turds : the social construction of sewage pollution by recreational boaters

Animals are often used as ‘evidence’ of marine pollution. Take for instance the ubiquitous images of miserable oil-soaked marine birds following high profile oil spills such as the Exxon Valdez, Pacific Adventurer and Deepwater Horizon incidents or the images of bloated floating fish carcasses which are used to signal the presence of toxic pollutants. In recent years waste discharges from vessels have come under increased public and regulatory scrutiny both in Australia and around the world. International, regional, national and local restrictions are becoming more stringent for high profile marine pollutants such as oil as well as previously overlooked vessel-sourced pollutants such as sewage. Drawing upon media reports and recreational boater responses to government attempts to regulate the discharge of sewage from recreational vessels, this paper considers the important role played by animals in constructions of marine pollution by sewage and attributions of blame for this pollution. Specifically, this study found that recreational boat owners disputed claims their sewage management practices posed an environmental threat arguing that the sewage discharged was readily and eagerly consumed by fish in the receiving environment. Boat owners also argued that increased levels of bacteria which indicate the presence of faeces within the marine environment could be directly attributed to the excrement of marine mammals and birds or were the result of dog faeces being washed through municipal storm water systems rather than the result of vessel discharges. By contrast the contamination of oysters was provided as evidence of sewage pollution by other stakeholders.