The new law of Torts

An essential text for tort law students, this is the first to comprehensively cover recent tort reform legislation as enacted in each Australian jurisdiction, and to deal with the impact these reforms have had on the common law. Both authors from Deakin University, Victoria.

Damages for pain and suffering in tort law

Legislation enacted between 2002 and 2005 by each Australian State and Territory reformed and partially codified the common law of personal injuries. This column examines the nature and history of damages for pain and suffering and analyses the approach taken by different Australian jurisdictions to compensation for non-economic loss. Non-economic loss is generally composed of pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and loss of enjoyment of life (some jurisdictions, eg New South Wales, also include disfigurement, and loss of expectation of life). Several jurisdictions have imposed thresholds that a claimant must meet as a prerequisite to suing for damages at common law.

Hollow avowals of human rights protection-time for an Australian federal bill of rights?

Unlike the constitutions of many nations, such as the United States of America and the Republic of South Africa, the constitutions of the Australian States and Territories and the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901 (UK) contain no bill of rights. Australia is the only western democracy without a federal bill of rights. The debate regarding the need for a bill of rights necessitates an understanding of what human rights the people of Australia already enjoy. If sufficient protection can be found in existing sources, does Australia really need a federal bill of rights? Opponents of a bill of rights state that we have sufficient protection from arbitrary government intervention in our personal affairs and thus a bill of rights is unnecessary. There are a number of potential sources of human rights in Australia that might provide the suggested existing protection, including the common law, specific domestic legislation, international law and constitutional law. Each of these sources of human rights has, however, important limitations. The focus of this article is on the inadequacy of the Australian constitutions as a source of purported protection. This in turn suggests that an alternative source of rights is needed - a federal bill of rights? In the course of this analysis the author makes suggestions for reform; specifically how a federal bill of rights may address the paucity of constitutional protection.

'The witness who saw, /He left little doubt' : a comparative consideration of expert testimony in mental disability law cases in common and civil law systems

The question of how courts assess expert evidence - especially when mental disability is an issue - raises the corollary question of whether courts adequately evaluate the content of the expert testimony or whether judicial decision making may be influenced by teleology (cherry picking evidence), pretextuality (accepting experts who distort evidence to achieve socially desirable aims), and/or sanism (allowing prejudicial and stereotyped evidence). Such threats occur despite professional standards in forensic psychology and other mental health disciplines that require ethical expert testimony. The result is expert testimony that, in many instances, is at best incompetent and at worst biased. The paper details threats to competent expert testimony in a comparative law context - in both the common law (involuntary civil commitment laws and risk assessment criminal laws) and, more briefly, civil law. We conclude that teleology, pretextuality, and sanism have an impact upon judicial decision making in both the common law and civil law. Finally, we speculate as to whether the new United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is likely to have any impact on practices in this area. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The compliance of Australian preventative detention law with article 9(1) ICCPR

This thesis found that a provision of Australia's counter-terrorism policy, preventative detention, does not comply with a major international treaty, the ICCPR. This thesis provides an alternative model by which the Australian Government could achieve the legitimate purposes of preventative detention within the existing constraints of the Australian criminal law.

Succession and Indigenous Australians : addressing Indigenous customary law notions of 'property' and 'kinship' in a succession law context

The purpose of this article is to critically evaluate the existing capacity of Indigenous people to exercise succession rights against their estate. This article begins with a discussion of the sources of the general succession laws in Australia, noting that they have derived from UK law, where the common law notions of property, property rights and family, including the expectational right to succeed to property, are all important factors. These common law notions do not easily fit within the spectrum of Indigenous customary law. Generally, many Indigenous Australians will die without executing a valid will (ie, they die intestate) and it is here that this article undertakes an examination of the general intestacy laws in all Australian jurisdictions noting the inadequacy of the provisions to recognise Indigenous persons’ spiritual and cultural obligations to property, land or otherwise, together with a failure to distinguish extended Indigenous kinship relationships under Indigenous customary law. It is argued that Indigenous people who die intestate should be supported by a flexible and adaptive intestacy framework, responsive to the full customary and cultural responsibilities of the deceased, thus promoting an organic and developmental approach to succession entitlements.

The diversification discount and takeovers : some Australian evidence

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the existence of a diversification discount in the Australian takeover market. A sample of 446 Australian publicly-listed firms involved in the market for corporate control was observed between 2000 and 2007. The authors examined two pre-announcement and four post-announcement periods, predominantly around the immediate event date, but also examined activity out to one year following the announcement.
Design/methodology/approach – An event study, in this case, is used to examine abnormal returns around the announcement of a merger or acquisition. The timeframe this study intends to focus on is the period from announcement date to a time one year down the track which, although some studies may deem it “long-term”, is still a relatively short-term measure of performance.While many variables in acquisitions have been looked at in depth over the years, such as outcome, nature, payment method and size of deal, one area which has had considerably less attention is the area of specialisation and diversification. That is, do focus increasing (or non-diversification) deals have different return patterns relative to focus decreasing (or diversification) deals?
Findings – The overall findings of this paper are fairly mixed, barring a few exceptions, and there does not appear to be a great deal of variation in return patterns based purely on whether the announced acquisition is non-diversifying or diversifying in nature.
Originality/value – The paper is of particular value in Australia. Most of the research of diversification to date has taken place in the USA. Australia is similar to the USA in that it has a well-developed economy based on common law principles and an active equity market, however, the existence of institutional and regulatory differences suggests that US results may not hold in Australia.

Authorship and fixation in copyright law : a comparative comment

[The present comment considers an issue that has received little discussion in the common law world: namely whether fixation and authorship are parts of the same creative act in relation to literary, dramatic and musical works. The importance of the question is that, if authorship does not entail fixation, it should logically be possible for a person independent of the author to reduce the work to material form for copyright purposes. This would significantly expand the range of works protected by copyright and would extend protection to those works which have never been fixed by their authors. The focus of the comment is Australian law, but its discussion is comparative, with particular attention given to UK law.]

The new law of torts

The New Law of Torts third edition continues to question whether foundational principles and policies of torts law, reflect the social and moral values of modern Australian society. Living up to its name as The New Law of Torts, this book has been up-dated with the latest legislative and judicial development as well as the recent major cases, reflecting the changing nature of tort law.This is an essential and accessible text as it provides a clear and succinct discussion of the interface between the statutory regime in each jurisdiction and the common law. It comprehensively covers the law as it is applicable to the whole of Australia. The book has clearly delineated parts, sections and topics for each genus of torts (trespass, action on the case, statutory wrongs, etc.), and each species (battery, assault, negligence, nuisance). Headings and sub-headings provide useful breaks in the text, and selected cases are used not only as authorities, but also as illustrations of principle and judicial reasoning.

Critique and comment: Authorship and fixation in copyright law: A comparative comment

The present comment considers an issue that has received little discussion in the common law world: namely whether fixation and authorship are parts of the same creative act in relation to literary, dramatic and musical works. The importance of the question is that, if authorship does not entail fixation, it should logically be possible for a person independent of the author to reduce the work to material form for copyright purposes. This would significantly expand the range of works protected by copyright and would extend protection to those works which have never been fixed by their authors. The focus of the comment is Australian law, but its discussion is comparative, with particular attention given to UK law.

Litigation by shareholders and directors: an empirical study of the Australian statutory derivative action

A number of countries have statutory derivative actions. They allow a shareholder to bring legal action on behalf of the company, typically where the company refuses or is unable to bring the action. The Australian derivative action was enacted in March 2000 to overcome inadequacies with the common law derivative action. In this article the authors present the results of an empirical study of all cases decided under the Australian statutory derivative action during its first 6 years of operation. The study provides insights into the way Australian courts have interpreted and applied this legal remedy. The authors evaluate the statutory derivative action in light of the reasons for its enactment. Issues discussed in the article include the role of shareholder litigation in corporate governance and the rationale for statutory derivative actions.

Jones -v- Bartlett: landlords` liability to tenants and members of their household in negligence

According to the latest available statistics, in 1997-98, of the total of seven million Australian households, two million were renting their dwelling from a State housing authority or private landlords.Therefore, the decision on the scope of landlords' liability to tenants, members of their households, and guests in the right of the tenant handed down by the High Court of Australia in November 2000 was not only of legal, but also of social and economic significance. This note will discuss the Jones v Bartlett case in the context of the traditional common law approach to landlords' liability and the ground-breaking, if flawed, case of Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris.

The times are they a-changin'? Can the Commonwealth parliament legislate for same sex marriages?

This article considers whether the marriage power contained in the Australian Constitution could support a Commonwealth law that recognised same sex marriages. To this end and after outlining the current constitutional meaning according to the High Court, three methods used for interpreting constitutional terms (connotation/denotation, moderate originalism, non-originalism) are examined to ascertain whether they could source such a law to the marriage power. It is submitted that none can do so without betraying their own core interpretative principle or the text and structure of the Constitution. However an alternative method for interpreting [*2] constitutional terms is proffered which may be able to establish a sufficient connection between a law that recognises same sex marriages and the marriage power. It involves recognising 'marriage' as a constitutionalised legal term of art whose meaning can be informed by developments since federation in common law and statute.

RE Kevin and the right of transsexual persons to marry in Australia

This article considers the decision of the Family Court of Australia in Re Kevin (Validity of Marriage of a Transsexual) [2001] FamCA 1074, which was upheld by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in February 2003. Re Kevin was the first case in Australia to deal directly with the question of whether a transsexual person could marry under Australian law. In the past, Australia had adhered to the judgement of Ormrod J in Corbett v Corbett [1971] P. 83, which set the benchmark for what is ‘male’ and what is ‘female’ under the common law. Prior to Re Kevin the question of what is a man and what is a woman for the purposes of marriage in Australia mirrored the strict biological test established in Corbett. In other words, the Australian courts relied upon biological factors, as espoused by Ormrod J, when determining a person's true sex. In Re Kevin, Chisholm J examined in detail what it is to be a man or woman, but unlike Ormrod J considered ‘brain sex’ to have a significant impact on a person's view of their own innate sexual identity. The Full Court of the Family Court agreed with the powerful and well-reasoned judgement of Chisholm J at first instance.

The disunity of employment law and sentencing

This article discusses the lack of integration between criminal sanctions and employment deprivations (in the form of being dismissed from employment or disqualified from working in certain industries). Offenders who are employed in certain industries, especially the professions, often suffer a far greater net punishment upon being found guilty of a criminal offence than other offenders, thereby violating the principle of proportionality and the (related) principle of equality in the impact of sanctions. The reason that such a situation has developed is because criminal sanctions and employment deprivations have evolved from different streams of jurisprudence. This article argues that sentencers should impose a ‘net’ sanction for a criminal offence, thereby merging these streams of jurisprudence. This would require courts to be vested with the power to suspend or disqualify people from being employed in certain occupations. The legal analysis in this article focuses on case and statutory law in Australia, however, the same broad principles apply in all common law jurisdictions, including the UK. Hence, the reform proposals suggested in this article are relevant throughout the common law world.