Medical negligence, causation and 'exceptional cases' under the civil liability legislation

Under the civil liability legislation enacted in most Australian jurisdictions, factual causation will be established if, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant can prove that the defendant's negligence was 'a necessary condition of the occurrence of the [claimant's] harm'. Causation will then be satisfied by showing that the harm would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's breach of their duty of care. However, in an exceptional or appropriate case, sub-section 2 of the legislation provides that if the 'but for' test is not met, factual causation may instead be determined in accordance with other 'established principles'. In such a case, 'the court is to consider (amongst other relevant things) whether or not and why responsibility for the harm should be imposed' on the negligent party.

Limited Liability Act of 1855

Examines the Limited Liability Act 1855 and highlights its significance in the formation of the modern company's legal framework. Looks at the background to the Act, which was repealed after a few months and incorporated in the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 in an amended form. Considers the Act's legacy in extending the general principle of limited liability for corporate debts to shareholders of registered companies, including its implications in allowing a greater diversification of shareholders.

Defendants' liability for pure mental harm to third parties in Australia : still a work in progress

In Australia, both common and statutory law allows compensation for negligently occasioned recognised psychiatric injury, but distinguishes between pure mental harm and consequential mental harm. This column briefly discusses the concept of pure "mental harm" and the major Australian cases relating to defendants' liability to third parties for causing them pure mental harm (Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549 [PDF]; Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) 211 CLR 317 [PDF]; Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 [PDF]; and Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 269 [PDF]). The analysis focuses on judicial approaches to determining liability in these cases, especially causation. Lack of guiding principles and precise tests for attribution of liability are illustrated by Kemp v Lyell McEwin Health Service (2006) 96 SASR 192 [PDF]. This case is analysed first in the context of common law, and then in the light of the reform legislation contained in the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) and similar provisions in other jurisdictions.

Amendments to the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld)

Wholesale amendments to the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) were recently introduced with the passing of the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2005 (Qld). The amendments were preceded by an extensive review of issues associated with the operation of the freehold land register and consultation with a number of stakeholders. The three articles that follow address different issues associated with these statutory amendments. The first article provides a brief overview of the amendments. The second article deals with particular amendments designed to combat mortgage fraud. In the third article, the question posed is whether further statutory amendment could better protect unregistered interests.

Waiver of statutory requirements : Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld)

One of the many difficulties associated with the drafting of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is the operation of s 365. If the requirements imposed by this section concerning the return of the executed contract are not complied with, the buyer and the seller will not be bound by the relevant contract and the cooling-off period will not commence. In these circumstances, it is clear that a buyer’s offer may be withdrawn. However, the drafting of the Act creates a difficulty in that the ability of the seller to withdraw from the transaction prior to the parties being bound by the contract is not expressly provided by s 365. On one view, if the buyer is able to withdraw an offer at any time before receiving the prescribed contract documentation the seller also should not be bound by the contract until this time, notwithstanding that the seller may have been bound at common law. However, an alternative analysis is that the legislative omission to provide the seller with a right of withdrawal may be deliberate given the statutory focus on buyer protection. If this analysis were correct the seller would be denied the right to withdraw from the transaction after the contract was formed at common law (that is, after the seller had signed and the fact of signing had been communicated to the buyer).

Section 64 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) and the reluctant buyer

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Dunworth v Mirvac Qld Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 200 arose from unusual circumstances associated with the flood in Brisbane earlier this year. Maris Dunworth (‘the buyer’) agreed to purchase a ground floor residential apartment located beside the Brisbane River at Tennyson from Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd (‘Mirvac’). The original date for completion was 12 May 2009. In earlier proceedings, the buyer had alleged that she had been induced to purchase the apartment by false, misleading and deceptive representations. This claim was dismissed and an order for specific performance was made with a new completion date of 8 February 2011...

The Neighbourhood Disputes Resolution Act 2011 (Qld) and disclosure issues

This article examines the recently introduced Neighbourhood Disputes Resolution Act 2011 (Qld). The operation of the Act is considered as it impacts upon the responsibility of neighbours for dividing fences and trees as well as disclosure obligations associated with sale transactions. A particular focus of the article is the interrelationship of the disclosure obligations imposed by the Act with the operation of standard contractual warranties in Queensland.

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 – whether refusal to stay execution of costs is an order “as to costs only”

In Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky [2009] QCA 92 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the scope of an order “as to costs only” within the meaning of s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) (‘the Act”). The Court also declined to accept submissions from one of the parties after oral hearing, and made some useful comments which serve as a reminder to practitioners of their obligations in that regard.

Analysing the Prospects of a Successful Application Under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)

Section 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) makes provision for an applicant to seek a statutory right of user over a neighbour’s property where such right of use is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. In recent years, the Queensland courts have been confronted with a number of such applications. Litigation has also been common in New South Wales which has a statutory provision in largely similar terms. This article seeks to identify those factors that have underpinned successful applications, the obstacles that an applicant may encounter and the considerations that have guided the courts when considering the associated issues of compensation and costs.

When can a tenancy be terminated under s 129 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)?

This article reviews the nature and purpose of s 129 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) whose application has given rise to some confusion in the past, particularly where the lessee against whom it is being used is also in breach of the lease at the time of receiving the notice. The article explores the historical origins of the section, firstly in New South Wales where it was enacted in 1930, and attempts to outline modern circumstances where it may be applied or particularly applied in Queensland.