Open content licensing of public sector information and the risk of tortious liability for Australian Governments

There has been an increasing interest by governments worldwide in the potential benefits of open access to public sector information (PSI). However, an important question remains: can a government incur tortious liability for incorrect information released online under an open content licence? This paper argues that the release of PSI online for free under an open content licence, specifically a Creative Commons licence, is within the bounds of an acceptable level of risk to government, especially where users are informed of the limitations of the data and appropriate information management policies and principles are in place to ensure accountability for data quality and accuracy.

Loss of chance in medical negligence claims now a lost cause?

The question whether the loss of chance of a better medical outcome in cases of medical negligence should be recognised as actionable damage is ‘a question which has divided courts and commentators throughout the common law world.’ In April 2010, the High Court handed down its anticipated decision in the case of Tabet (by her Tutor Sheiban) v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537. The issue considered by the court was whether the appellant could claim in negligence for the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome. This issue had not been considered by the High Court previously, the most relevant cases being Rufo v Hosking (2004) 61 NSWLR 678 and Gavalas v Singh (2001) 3 VLR 404. Claiming for a loss of chance in a personal injury action raises questions as to recognised damage and causation, and the members of the High Court considered both of these.

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.

Intent behind payments determines impact on assessment of damages

In Zheng v Cai (2009) 261 ALR 481 the High Court had to determine whether voluntary payments made to the appellant by a third party were to be taken into account when assessing a claim for damages for personal injury.

Assessment of damages for property damage

In Gagner Pty t/as Indochine Café v Canturi Corporation Pty Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 691, the assessment of damages awarded for the rectification work to the premises of the respondent was in issue. The appellant operated a restaurant above the respondent’s jewellery store in Sydney. When the kitchen of the restaurant flooded, water escaped causing damage to the jewellery store’s fit-out. The escape of the water was held to be due to the negligence of persons for whom the appellant was vicariously liable. The trial judge awarded damages, measured by the amount required to return the premises as close as was possible to the condition prior to the flood damage as well as an allowance for interruption to the business for 10 days. The 10 day allowance reflected the number of days the store would have been closed for if it was to be returned to its previous condition. The evidence was that the flooding has only affected approximately 10% of the floor area of the store. However, instead of having work carried out to bring the premises back to its condition as before the water damage, the respondent closed the business for 29 working days for a complete internal refurbishment – at a cost substantially more than simple rectification. On appeal it was argued that the trial judge had assessed the damages incorrectly as by undertaking a complete refurbishment had the effect that the respondent did not suffer any loss as a consequence of the negligence in relation to the fit-out. It was asserted that the claim for damages was in the circumstances a claim for betterment. It was also argued that the damages should not include a component for GST. Campbell JA gave reasons, with Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA agreeing.

Uncetainty in claiming damages for defects in property

In Project Management Company No 2 Pty Ltd v Cushway Blackford & Associates Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 102 the appellant sought leave to join its parent company party (Project Management Company No 1) as a plaintiff to the proceedings and to amend its statement of claim. It was argued that the parent company had suffered the loss claimed in the proceedings, rather than the appellant. Rule 69(1)(b)(ii) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) allows a court at any stage of the proceeding to order that ‘a person whose presence before the court would be desirable, just and convenient to enable the court to adjudicate effectually and completely on all matters in dispute connected with the proceeding’ be include as a party. To determine this issue, the Court of Appeal had to review the law relevant to the proceedings – a claim in negligence for pure economic loss, in particular, the principles espoused by the High Court in Bryan v Maloney(1995) 182 CLR 609 and Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515.

Neural interface systems : a new legal frontier?

In an age where digital innovation knows no boundaries, research in the area of brain-computer interface and other neural interface devices go where none have gone before. The possibilities are endless and as dreams become reality, the implications of these amazing developments should be considered. Some of these new devices have been created to correct or minimise the effects of disease or injury so the paper discusses some of the current research and development in the area, including neuroprosthetics. To assist researchers and academics in identifying some of the legal and ethical issues that might arise as a result of research and development of neural interface devices, using both non-invasive techniques and invasive procedures, the paper discusses a number of recent observations of authors in the field. The issue of enhancing human attributes by incorporating these new devices is also considered. Such enhancement may be regarded as freeing the mind from the constraints of the body, but there are legal and moral issues that researchers and academics would be well advised to contemplate as these new devices are developed and used. While different fact situation surround each of these new devices, and those that are yet to come, consideration of the legal and ethical landscape may assist researchers and academics in dealing effectively with matters that arise in these times of transition. Lawyers could seek to facilitate the resolution of the legal disputes that arise in this area of research and development within the existing judicial and legislative frameworks. Whether these frameworks will suffice, or will need to change in order to enable effective resolution, is a broader question to be explored.

Long term exposure to asbestos satisfies test for causation

Background In Booth v Amaca Pty Ltd and Amaba Pty Ltd,1 the New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal awarded a retired motor mechanic $326 640 in damages for his malignant pleural mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos through working with the brake linings manufactured by the defendants. The evidence before the Tribunal was that the plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos prior to working as a mechanic from home renovations when he was a child and loading a truck as a youth. However, as a mechanic he had been exposed to asbestos in brake linings on which he worked from 1953 to 1983. Curtis DCJ held at [172] that the asbestos from the brake linings ‘materially contributed to [the plaintiff’s] contraction of mesothelioma’. This decision was based upon acceptance that the effect of exposure to asbestos on the development of mesothelioma was cumulative and rejection of theory that a single fibre of asbestos can cause the disease...

High court determines that it cannot be assumed that hot chips are only eaten at lunch

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...

Full compensation no longer sacrosanct : reflections on the past and future economic loss ‘cap’ for high income earners

The civil liability provisions relating to the assessment of damages for past and future economic loss have abrogated the common law principle of full compensation by imposing restrictions on the damages award, most commonly by a “three times average weekly earnings” cap. This consideration of the impact of those provisions is informed by a case study of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal decision, Tuohey v Freemasons Hospital (Tuohey) , which addressed the construction and arithmetic operation of the Victorian cap for high income earners. While conclusions as to operation of the cap outside of Victoria can be drawn from Tuohey, a number of issues await judicial determination. These issues, which include the impact of the damages caps on the calculation of damages for economic loss in the circumstances of fluctuating income; vicissitudes; contributory negligence; claims per quod servitum amisit; and claims by dependants, are identified and potential resolutions discussed.

Compensation for lost services of an employee : pure economic loss and per quod action

Under the common law an employer may take action against a defendant for the loss of an employee’s services due to the act of the defendant (per quod servitium amisit - by reason of which the services were lost). The High Court has recently affirmed the existence of this ancient tort in Barclay v Penberthy [2012] HCA 40.