Book review - Richard Goldberg, Medicinal Product Liability and Regulation (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2013) 214pp

In December 2013, settlement was reached between approximately 100 Australian and New Zealand Thalidomide victims and the company which had acted as the Australian distributor of the infamous drug, thus putting to rest the possibility of litigation. Around the same time, Thalidomide victims in the United Kingdom (UK) launched a similar bid for compensation against the manufacturer and distributor. It is clear that despite a lengthy amount of time having passed ever since the thalidomide disaster commenced in 1962, the controversy over compensation continues. Indeed, the author of Medicinal Product Liability and Regulation (published before the announcement of the British legal claim), Professor Goldberg, notes that claims for resulting birth defects continue to emerge right into the present day. His prescient insight into the contemporary relevance of compensation for pharmaceutical injuries thus makes Medicinal Product Liability and Regulation a very relevant addition to the small body of scholarship that is available on this rather specific and complex issue.

Valuers, liability and insurance obligations revisited

- Overview of negligence from the valuer’s perspective - Consideration of defences - Impact of lender conduct - Insurance obligations and impact for the valuer

The ghost in the machine: Legal challenges of neural interface devices

Neural interface devices and the melding of mind and machine, challenge the law in determining where civil liability for injury, damage or loss should lie. The ability of the human mind to instruct and control these devices means that in a negligence action against a person with a neural interface device, determining the standard of care owed by him or her will be of paramount importance. This article considers some of the factors that may influence the court’s determination of the appropriate standard of care to be applied in this situation, leading to the conclusion that a new standard of care might evolve.

The responsibility of intermediaries: Emerging IP protection schemes, from Content ID, to three-strikes and follow-the-money

The only effective and scalable way to regulate the actions of people on the internet is through online intermediaries. These are the institutions that facilitate communication: internet service providers, search engines, content hosts, and social networks. Governments, private firms, and civil society organisations are increasingly seeking to influence these intermediaries to take more responsibility to prevent or respond to IP infringements. Around the world, intermediaries are increasingly subject to a variety of obligations to help enforce IP rights, ranging from informal social and governmental pressure, to industry codes and private negotiated agreements, to formal legislative schemes. This paper provides an overview of this emerging shift in regulatory approaches, away from legal liability and towards increased responsibilities for intermediaries. This shift straddles two different potential futures: an optimistic set of more effective, more efficient mechanisms for regulating user behaviour, and a dystopian vision of rule by algorithm and private power, without the legitimising influence of the rule of law.

Integrated reporting and directors’ concerns about personal liability exposure: Law reform options

Integrated reporting () holds significant promise as a new reporting paradigm that is holistic, strategic, responsive, material, and relevant across multiple time frames. However, its uptake in Australia is being hampered by directors’ concerns about personal liability exposure, particularly for forward-looking statements that subsequently prove to be unfounded. This article seeks to illuminate the bases for these liability concerns by outlining the similarities between and the operating and financial review requirements under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and the relevant grounds for liability for misleading and deceptive disclosures, and breach of directors’ duties. In light of this discussion, this article proposes four possible reform options, ranging from minor adaptations to the Framework to far-reaching reforms of the Corporations Act. As assurance is desirable to ensure that reliance can be placed on integrated reports, the development of a legal safe harbour for auditors of forward-looking information is also canvassed.

The issue of consent: For the plaintiff or defendant to prove in trespass to person?

In White v Johnston1 the vexed question of whether it is for a plaintiff to prove lack of consent to a trespass to person or for the defendant to establish consent as defence was considered. The court also considered the principles of assessing an award of exemplary damages...

Deathbed instructions and the assessment of capacity: A practical perspective

The assessment of capacity in the context of wills and advance care planning is a challenging task for modern practitioners with the increase in mentally disabling conditions, such as acquired brain injury. This challenge is only heightened in the situation where the assessment occurs at the client’s deathbed as there are the added elements of urgency, and emotional upheaval at the impending death of a loved one. This situation poses a minefield of problems a legal practitioner should be aware of, involving not only the assessment process but also potential professional liability issues. This presentation will address the practical considerations a legal professional should take into account when in this situation. We will focus on two discrete situations and the issues arising from them: first, where there has been an acquired brain injury and legal capacity is in question; and second, where a spinal injury has occurred which does not affect capacity, rather results in the inability to use conventional forms of communication to communicate his/her instructions. We will examine these case studies with a view to proposing a best practice model for legal practitioners when assessing capacity in this context.

The doctrine of necessity and the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment: Is there any justification?

In Australia, the legal basis for the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment is ad hoc and unclear. There is no comprehensive legal framework that authorises and regulates the detention of, for example, older people with dementia in locked wards or in residential aged care, people with disability in residential services or people with acquired brain injury in hospital and rehabilitation services. This paper focuses on whether the common law doctrine of necessity (or its statutory equivalents) should have a role in permitting the detention and restraint of people with disabilities. Traditionally, the defence of necessity has been recognised as an excuse, where the defendant, faced by a situation of imminent peril, is excused from the criminal or civil liability because of the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in. In the United Kingdom, however, in In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) and R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L, the House of Lords broadened the defence so that it operated as a justification for treatment, detention and restraint outside of the emergency context. This paper outlines the distinction between necessity as an excuse and as a defence, and identifies a number of concerns with the latter formulation: problems of democracy, integrity, obedience, objectivity and safeguards. Australian courts are urged to reject the United Kingdom approach and retain an excuse-based defence, as the risks of permitting the essentially utilitarian model of necessity as a justification are too great.

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.

Accountability of insurers under s 54: Striking the balance between commerciality and consumer protection

Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) continues to occupy a prominent position in insurance-related litigation. This section which imposes a concept of causation, or prejudice to the insurer, to restrict an insurer’s reliance upon contractual terms to avoid liability for particular claims, is often before the courts. This note focuses upon the recent High Court of Australia decision in Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 33.

Liability and statutory defence in Queensland

Context Increasing client awareness of valuer's duty of care - Webb Resolutions Ltd v E.Surv Ltd [2012] - Provident Capital Limited v John Virtue Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] - Including disciplinary actions: Valuers Registration Board of Qld v Conroy [2013] QCAT 688 combined with Post-GFC ‘drops’ in value!

What’s law got to do with it?: Medical negligence, causation and the use of policy

In a medical negligence context, and under the causation provisions enacted pursuant to Civil Liability Legislation in most Australian jurisdictions, the normative concept of “scope of liability” requires a consideration of whether or not and why a medical practitioner should be responsible for a patient’s harm. As such, it places a limit on the extent to which practitioners are deemed liable for a breach of the duty of care owed by them, in circumstances where a legal factual connection between that breach and the causation of a patient’s harm has already been shown. It has been said that a determination of causation requires ‘the identification and articulation of an evaluative judgement by reference to “the purposes and policy of the relevant part of the law”’: Wallace v Kam (2013) 297 ALR 383, 388. Accordingly, one of the normative factors falling within scope of liability is an examination of the content and purpose of the rule or duty of care violated – that is, its underlying policy and whether this supports an attribution of legal responsibility upon a practitioner. In this context, and with reference to recent jurisprudence, this paper considers: the policy relevant to a practitioner’s duty of care in each of the areas of diagnosis, treatment and advice; how this has been used to determine an appropriate scope of liability for the purpose of the causation inquiry in medical negligence claims; and whether such an approach is problematic for medical standards or decision-making.

The changing face of conveyancing responsibility

In this note the authors examine two cases, one from Australia, the other from New Zealand, both of which explore the responsibility of legal practitioners engaged as professionals in the buying and selling of land. What is shown is that the allocation of risk and responsibility is constantly under scrutiny for those involved in the conveyancing process, something which the nascent Australian electronic conveyancing protocols will only heighten.

The Statutory Defence(s) of 'peer professional opinion'

In the wake of the GFC and with ever increasing consumer-protection-related laws, clients are more aware of their rights and your obligations as a professional valuer. They also are more likely to take legal action if, as a result of their reliance on a valuation, they suffer a financial loss. In some Australian jurisdictions, in response to a claim of negligence, the professional valuer may be able to raise a professional practice defence under civil liability legislation. This article considers the nature of this statutory defence, what is required to rely upon it and in which jurisdictions it applies.

Decision examines wrongdoers and liability

In Ligon Sixty-Three Pty Ltd v ClarkeKann [2015] QSC 153 the court considered an application to join parties as defendants when it was alleged they were concurrent wrongdoers for the purpose of the proportionate liability provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act).