Valuers? Liability : the impact of torts reform in Queensland

Historically there has been a correlation between the economic cycles and litigation in the area of professional negligence relating to valuers. Negligence actions have principally been instigated by financiers for valuations prepared during more buoyant economic times but where there has been a subsequent loss due to a reduction in property value. More specifically during periods of economic downturn such as 1982 to 1983 and 1990 to 1998 there has been an increased focus by academic writers on professional negligence as it relates to property valuers. Based on historical trends it is anticipated that the end of an extended period of economic prosperity such as has been experienced in Australia, will once again be marked by an increase in litigation against valuers for professional negligence. 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 (“the IPP Report”), in particular the introduction of Civil Liability Acts introducing proportionate liability provisions. This paper looks at valuers’ liability for professional negligence in the context of statutory reforms in Queensland and recent case law to determine the most significant impacts of recent statutory reform on property valuers.

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.

The role of law in responding to climate change : emerging regulatory, liability and market approaches

Climate change presents as the archetypal environmental problem with short-term economic self-interest operating to the detriment of the long-term sustainability of our society. The scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change strongly assert that the stabilisation of emissions in the atmosphere, to avoid the adverse impacts of climate change, requires significant and rapid reductions in ‘business as usual’ global greenhouse gas emissions. The sheer magnitude of emissions reductions required, within this urgent timeframe, will necessitate an unprecedented level of international, multi-national and intra-national cooperation and will challenge conventional approaches to the creation and implementation of international and domestic legal regimes. To meet this challenge, existing international, national and local legal systems must harmoniously implement a strong international climate change regime through a portfolio of traditional and innovative legal mechanisms that swiftly transform current behavioural practices in emitting greenhouse gases. These include the imposition of strict duties to reduce emissions through the establishment of strong command and control regulation (the regulatory approach); mechanisms for the creation and distribution of liabilities for greenhouse gas emissions and climaterelated harm (the liability approach) and the use of innovative regulatory tools in the form of the carbon trading scheme (the market approach). The legal relations between these various regulatory, liability and market approaches must be managed to achieve a consistent, compatible and optimally effective legal regime to respond to the threat of climate change. The purpose of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the emerging legal rules and frameworks, both international and Australian, required for the effective regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change in the context of the urgent and deep emissions reductions required to minimise the adverse impacts of climate change. In doing so, this thesis will examine critically the existing and potential role of law in effectively responding to climate change and will provide recommendations on the necessary reforms to achieve a more effective legal response to this global phenomenon in the future.

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.

Does section 420A impose ‘strict liability’ upon controllers for acts or omissions of agents and experts?

This article addresses in depth the question of whether section 420A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) imposes ‘strict liability’ upon a controller for the failure of an agent or expert to take reasonable care. The weight of existing authority appears to suggest that controllers are liable under s 420A for the carelessness of their agents or expert advisers. However, a closer analysis of the text of the provision and relevant Australian and UK case law demonstrates that this aspect of the statutory construction of s 420A remains very much an open question. This article ultimately contends for a construction of s 420A which requires a controller to adequately supervise and scrutinise, but which does not render a blameless controller strictly liable for all careless acts and omissions of agents and expert advisers.

Civil and Criminal Liability of Players

The liability of players in their particular sporting fields has increasingly become prevalent in the minds of government, sport administrators, the medical and legal professions and the parents and players themselves. This awareness has arisen for numerous reasons. Due to the enormous volume of sport to which the community is being exposed through the varied levels of the media together with our aspirations towards a healthier lifestyle and longevity, participation in sports has increased. Accordingly, sports injury litigation has increased. A number of other factors may be advanced to explain the increase. Sport has become big business all over the world. A talent for sport may bring the lucky player fame and fortune. It is not surprising therefore, where such ambitions are frustrated by deliberately or carelessly inflicted injury to the player, thought will be given to seeking compensation for that injury in the courts of law. Other factors are that litigation is on the increase as a means of dispute resolution and lawyers see sporting organisations better able to afford compensation to their players because they are more likely to carry insurance.

Director liability for uncommercial transactions : is s 588G(1A) impotent to provide liquidators the means to seek compensation for creditors?

In the 10 years since the addition of uncommercial transactions to the table of deemed “debts incurred” in s 588G(1A) of the Corporations Act, the sub-section has arguably achieved little. This article explains why this has been so, and what needs to be done to enable this aspect of Australia’s insolvent trading laws to operate effectively and as originally intended.

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.

Lifting the joint venture veil : liability of related entities for misleading conduct of agents engaged by joint venture partners

At common law, a corporation may be liable vicariously for the conduct of its appointed agents, employees or directors. This generally requires the agent or employee to be acting in the course of his or her agency or employment and, in the case of representations, to have actual or implied authority to make the representations. The circumstances in which a corporation may be liable for the conduct of its agents, employees or directors is broadened under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) to where one of these parties engages in conduct “on behalf of” the corporation. As the decision in Bennett v Elysium Noosa Pty Ltd (in liq) demonstrates, this may extend to liability for the misleading conduct of a salesperson for the joint venture to parties who are not formal members of the joint venture, but where the joint venture activities are within the course of the entity’s “business, affairs or activities”.