792 resultados para Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s59
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Subtitle varies.
Resumo:
Title varies; Vol. for 1934 does not include rules of the Supreme Court; vols. for 1949-1975 include Administrative Review Act.
Resumo:
"S. 44, to regulate interstate commerce by providing for a uniform product liability law, and for other purposes"
Resumo:
"January 2002 (Revised)."
Resumo:
"January 2002 (Revised)."
Resumo:
Shipping list no.: 94-0216-P.
Resumo:
"January 2002 (Revised)."
Resumo:
"January 2002 (Revised)."
Resumo:
Special edition: legal reforms in Queensland - the Legal Profession Act brings greater consistency into many aspects of lawyer regulation - while they are designed to bring greater national uniformity, the reforms depart from the national Model Laws, leading to unnecessary complexity.
Resumo:
In Wicks v State Rail Authority NSW; Sheehan v State Rail Authority NSW [2010] HCA 22 (16 June 2010) the duty of care owed to rescuers, who were police officers, at a train derailment, was considered in conjunction with the interpretation of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002.
Resumo:
In Strong v Woolworth Ltd (t/as Big W) (2012) 285 ALR 420 the appellant was injured when she fell at a shopping centre outside the respondent’s premises. The appellant was disabled, having had her right leg amputated above the knee and therefore walked with crutches. One of the crutches came into contact with a hot potato chip which was on the floor, causing the crutch to slip and the appellant to fall. The appellant sued in negligence, alleging that the respondent was in breach of its duty of care by failing to institute and maintain a cleaning system to detect spillages and foreign objects within its sidewalk sales area. The issue before the High Court was whether it could be established on the balance of probabilities as to when the hot chip had fallen onto the ground so as to prove causation in fact...
Resumo:
In Hughes v Impulse Entertainment Pty Ltd & Workcover Queensland [2013] QDC 21 the plaintiff commenced a proceeding more than 60 days after the compulsory conference under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The question to be determined was whether this meant the claim was statute-barred under that Act, even though the relevant limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) had not expired