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.

Quo iure? Defendants' liability to rescuers in the tort of negligence

The year 2001 marks the 80th anniversary of Cardozo J's judgment in Wagner v International Railway Co 232 NY 176 (1921). This article examines theoretical and procedural problems associated with the concept of duty of care as a foundation for the defendant's liability in negligence to altruistic rescuers, and suggests that Cardozo J's judgment did not establish the principle that defendants owe rescuers a duty of care in negligence. It is argued that subsequent judgments failed to provide the duty of care owed to rescuers under tortious negligence with proper jurisprudential foundations. Conceptual difficulties inherent in a jurisprudential principle that would provide physically injured rescuers with a legal right to a duty of care from the defendant under the tort of negligence were compounded once compensation for negligently occasioned pure emotional distress became available. This article analyses various theories of recovery for pure psychiatric injury and the classification of rescuers into primary and secondary victims. It proposes a solution in the form of a separate cause of action on the case for liability to injured rescuers, partly based on the principle of necessity that governs the Roman action for negotiorum gestio. Cases from the United States, England and Australia are used to illustrate the similarities and differences in the development of and approaches to, the law of rescue.

Unsafe leased residential premises: a landlord's liability in negligence to injured occupants

This article examines the law relating to the liability of landlords in negligence for unsafe residential premises, focusing in particular on the recent High Court decisions in Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris and Jones v Bartlett. The author concludes that the High Court in Jones v Bartlett has placed sensible limitations on landlords' liability, by limiting liability to defects in the premises that were known or ought to have been revealed on a reasonable inspection by the landlord. The author points out that there are compelling policy considerations supporting the court's conclusion in that case that the landlord should not be required to arrange for the premises to be inspected by expert tradespeople.

Corporate liability for workplace deaths and injuries-reflecting on Victoria's laws in the light of the Esso Longford explosion

The purpose of this article is to consider some different legal models for the liability of corporations for the deaths and serious injuries of their employees, with particular emphasis on the law in Victoria.

Two recent developments in Victoria prompt this consideration. First, on 30 July 2001, the Victorian Supreme Court handed down its sentencing decision in the case arising from the explosion on 25 September 1998 at the Longford gas plant operated by Esso Australia Pty Ltd. The decision marked the end of the formal public consideration of a devastating event in Victorian industrial history, which began with the Royal Commission set up on 20 October 1998 to investigate the causes of an explosion in which two workers died and eight others were injured. Second, in early 2002, the Victorian Government failed in its attempt to introduce new criminal offences for corporate employers whose employees are killed or seriously injured at work. In spite of their failure to be passed by the Legislative Council in Victoria, these proposals warrant consideration. They represent a growing trend by policy makers in attempting to address more effectively the question of the liability for deaths and serious injuries of workers to employers who operate through the corporate form.

"Sexually transmitted debts":the scope of defences to directors' liability for insolvent trading

The recent demise of prominent Australian corporations, such as GIO Australia Holdings Ltd, One.Tel Ltd, HIH Insurance Ltd and Ansett Australia Ltd, have highlighted the relevance of, inter alia, the Australian insolvent trading provisions embodied in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (formerly Corporations Law). What may not be appreciated, however, is that insolvent trading is not only concerned with large public companies. Many of the insolvent trading cases that come before the courts involve small proprietary companies. Moreover, in many cases these are small “family” companies where there may only be one active director. This gives rise to a difficult issue as to the appropriateness of imposing liability for insolvent trading on a spouse who is, factually, merely a dormant director. This article explores the issue of spousal liability for insolvent trading, particularly focusing on the scope of the current defences to insolvent
trading under s 588H.

The high court on vicarious liability

Vicarious liability (respondeat superior) is a venerable common law doctrine which holds an employer liable for the torts of employees, regardless of the fault of the employer. An employer's liability for the torts of its employees can represent a significant financial obligation and can affect both hiring and operational decisions of businesses. Vicarious liability is a prominent theme in the background of much litigation and is often the reason for litigating the issue of whether or not a worker is an employee. Vicarious liability may also arise through other relationships, such as partnership and agency. Two recent decisions by the High Court of Australia have drawn attention to the issue of vicarious liability. These decisions illuminate the High Court's view of vicarious liability's two main streams: negligence (Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd) n2 and intentional tort (NSW v Lepore). [*2] n3

Introducing personal liability under the continuous disclosure regime : The essentials and non-essentials

Under the Federal Government's CLERP 9 legislation, expected at the time of writing to come into force in July 2004, personal liability will be introduced for the first time under the continuous disclosure regime. Individuals who are 'involved' in a failure to immediately disclose materially price sensitive information to the market will be subject to a civil penalty, in addition to the company being liable. According to the author, the introduction of personal liability per se is not contentious and indeed is a favourable change; what is questionable, however, is whether 'involvement' in a contravention is the appropriate test for imposing personal liability in relation to breaches of the continuous disclosure provisions. Based on the case law to date on the meaning of 'involved', there is particular uncertainty as to whether an individual would need to have actual knowledge that non-disclosed information is 'materially price sensitive' in order to satisfy the test of 'involved' in the context of continuous disclosure, or whether mere knowledge that the information has not been disclosed would be sufficient. This uncertainty arises due to the vague concept of 'essential matters' which the courts have developed as a test for what degree of knowledge a person needs to have in order to be 'involved'. The author argues that all the confusion as to what 'involved' means could be addressed by removing the word 'essential' from the dialogue, so that the test of 'involvement' would simply be based on whether the particular person had actual knowledge of each of the factual elements constituting the offence.

Holding the purse strings : the continuing evolution of human rights law and the potential liability of the finance industry for human rights abuses

While the responsibility of States and, in more recent times, corporations, has been thoroughly discussed in relation to human right~, a new stage of evolution may be emerging in relation to the liability of the financial backers of an enterprise that is accused of human rights abuses. This article considers the basis in international law for such emerging liability and examines some of the legal avenues used in recent domestic litigation against financial institutions. The article concludes by examining some of the relevant instruments of 'soft' international law and notes that although there is little in the way of concrete legislation or judicial precedent that would hold financial institutions responsible for the actions of those they invest in, the potential for the law to evolve in that direction is clear.

Directors' personal liability-is the proposed amendment to Section 197 acceptable when compared with Hanel v O'Neill?

On 2 June 2005, the Australian Government announced a proposal to amend s. 197 of the Corporations Act. This is to overturn the decision in Hanel v. O'Neill ("Hanel") where the South Australian Supreme Court has expanded the circumstances in which directors of trustee companies can be held personally liable for the debts under the current section 197(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The multiple interpretations presented in Hanel highlighted the uncertainty of s. 197 and this uncertainty is heightened in at least two subsequent cases. The article provides a detailed analysis of how the decision in Hanel is affecting the directors' freedom of management and suggests some precautionary measures that the directors could take as protection against creditor's actions under s. 197. The author welcomes the proposed amendment because the new section will create certainty for directors as to. the scope of their potential personal liability, but contends that the substance of the proposed s. 197 is not acceptable as there is potential for abuse by directors of certain trustee companies.

China's aircraft carrier ambitions

Focuses on the intent of the Chinese government to acquire an aircraft carrier force as part of its ambition to achieve high seas naval capability. Possibility of buying a light aircraft carrier from a European builder; Concerns over the possibility to operate aircraft carrier battle groups; Protection of sovereignty and maritime resources.