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”.

Working with refugee survivors of torture and trauma : an opportunity for vicarious posttraumatic growth

Clinical work with people who have survived trauma carries a risk of vicarious traumatisation for the service provider, but also the potential for vicarious posttraumatic growth. Despite growing interest in this area, the effects of working with survivors of refugee-related trauma have remained relatively unexplored. The aim of the current study was to examine the lived experiences of people working on a daily basis with survivors of torture and trauma who had sought refuge in Australia. Seventeen clinical, administrative, and managerial staff from a not-for-profit organisation participated in a semi-structured interview that was later analysed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. Analysis of the data demonstrated that the entire sample reported symptoms of vicarious trauma (e.g., strong emotional reactions, intrusive images, shattering of existing beliefs) as well as vicarious posttraumatic growth (e.g., forming new relationships, increased self-understanding, greater appreciation of life). Moreover, effortful meaning making processes appeared to facilitate such positive changes. Reduction in the risks associated with this work, enhancement of clinician well-being, and improvement of therapeutic outcomes is a shared responsibility of the organisation and clinician. Without negating the distress of trauma work, clinicians are encouraged to more deeply consider the unique positive outcomes that supporting survivors can provide.

Legal practitioners’ negligence liability for claim investigation and advice

Nigam v Harm (No 2) [2011] WASCA 221, Western Australia Court of Appeal, 18 October 2011

Volunteers 'piggy-backing' on their private insurance : an uncertain protection against liability

Volunteering is a very important part of life in Australia with an estimated 36% of the adult population volunteering in 2010. Voluntary work generates economic benefits, addresses community needs and develops the social networks that form the backbone of civil society. Without volunteers, many essential services would either cease to exist or become too expensive for many people to afford. These volunteers, who by definition are not in receipt of any remuneration for their work and services, are exposed to personal injury and to legal liability in the discharge of their functions. It is therefore appropriate that statutory protection is extended to volunteers and that volunteer organisations procure public liability and personal accident cover where possible. However, given the patchwork quilt of circumstances where statutory or institutional cover is available to volunteers and the existence of many and diverse exclusions, it is important to have regard also to what scope a volunteer may have to avail themselves of protection against liability for volunteering activity by relying upon their own personal insurance cover. This article considers the extent of private insurance cover and its availability to volunteers under home and contents insurance and under comprehensive motor vehicle insurance. The most common policies in the Australian market are examined and the uncertain nature of protection against liability afforded by these policies is discussed. This uncertainty could be reduced should the Federal Government through amendments to the Insurance Contracts Regulations standardise the circumstances and extent to which liability protection was afforded to an insured holding home and contents insurance and comprehensive motor vehicle insurance cover.

An analysis of Australia's legal regime for imposing liability on manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs

Following a trial in June 2009 where the Federal Court heard submissions regarding whether Merck Sharpe and Dohme Australia should be held liable for an increased risk of cardiovascular conditions noted in patients who had taken the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx, a judgment was handed down against MSDA in March 2010. MSDA appealed to the Full Federal Court, where they were successful. Special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was rejected in May 2012. This article will examine the themes raised in the trial judgment and the appropriateness of Australia’s statutory consumer protection regime through the lens of pharmaceutical drug injuries and side effects.

An examination of the liability of a construction contract certifier who gets it wrong

Construction contracts often provide that decisions under the contract will be made by a certifier. This paper reviews the liability issues when a certifier makes a mistake. We do that in light of recent pronouncements by the High Court of Australia and the New South Wales Court of Appeal on negligence. We look at this question in the context of traditional construction contract arrangements and also consider the implications for Public Private Partnerships and the typical contract arrangements entered into to facilitate these transactions.

Australian Medical Liability [Second Edition]

"Australian Medical Liability is a comprehensive handbook focusing on medical liability in the context of the civil liability legislation across Australia. This thoroughly revised second edition provides a detailed and in depth commentary on the elements of medical liability caselaw and legislation."--Libraries Australia

Liability in negligence and the failure to disclose multiple risks in surgery : I would have been willing to run the risk

It has been 21 years since the decision in Rogers v Whitaker and the legal principles concerning informed consent and liability for negligence are still strongly grounded in this landmark High Court decision. This paper considers more recent developments in the law concerning the failure to disclose inherent risks in medical procedures, focusing on the decision in Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19. In this case, the appellant underwent a surgical procedure that carried a number of risks. The surgery itself was not performed in a sub-standard way, but the surgeon failed to disclose two risks to the patient, a failure that constituted a breach of the surgeon’s duty of care in negligence. One of the undisclosed risks was considered to be less serious than the other, and this lesser risk eventuated causing injury to the appellant. The more serious risk did not eventuate, but the appellant argued that if the more serious risk had been disclosed, he would have avoided his injuries completely because he would have refused to undergo the procedure. Liability was disputed by the surgeon, with particular reference to causation principles. The High Court of Australia held that the appellant should not be compensated for harm that resulted from a risk he would have been willing to run. We examine the policy reasons underpinning the law of negligence in this specific context and consider some of the issues raised by this unusual case. We question whether some of the judicial reasoning adopted in this case, represents a significant shift in traditional causation principles.

Limitation of Actions - effect of admission of liability

The decision in Simpson v Lenton [2002] QDC 214 applied the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Lindsay v Smith [2002] 1 Qd R 610 and Morris v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd [1996] 1 QDR 495 in finding the second defendant, having admitted liability, was estopped from relying on the expiration of the limitation period.