Gratuitous services - Civil Liability Act 2003 s59

The article considers the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Kritz v King [2006] QCA 351, which examined for the first time s59 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) in relation to claims for damages for gratuitous services.

The economics of credence goods : an experiment on the role of liability, verifiability, reputation and competition

Credence goods markets are characterized by asymmetric information between sellers and consumers that may give rise to inefficiencies, such as under- and overtreatment or market breakdown. We study in a large experiment with 936 participants the determinants for efficiency in credence goods markets. While theory predicts that liability or verifiability yield efficiency, we find that liability has a crucial, but verifiability at best a minor, effect. Allowing sellers to build up reputation has little influence, as predicted. Seller competition drives down prices and yields maximal trade, but does not lead to higher efficiency as long as liability is violated. (JEL D12, D82)

OHS liability, corporate officers and corporate groups

This article examines the new model for corporate officer liability under section 144 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic), and explores the extent to which this might effectively extend responsibility for OHS offences to members of corporate groups, such as holding companies. In doing so, the authors canvass the failure of corporate law to impose such obligations on corporate officers in general, and on holding companies as shadow officers. It is argued that provisions such as section 144 of the Victorian Act should be included in all OHS legislation.

Medical negligence, causation and liability for non-disclosure of risk : a post-wallace framework and critique

Through an examination of Wallace v Kam, this article considers and evaluates the law of causation in the specific context of a medical practitioner’s duty to provide information to patients concerning material risks of treatment. To supply a contextual background for the analysis which follows, Part II summarises the basic principles of causation law, while Part III provides an overview of the case and the reasoning adopted in the decisions at first instance and on appeal. With particular emphasis upon the reasoning in the courts of appeal, Part IV then examines the implications of the case in the context of other jurisprudence in this field and, in so doing, provides a framework for a structured consideration of causation issues in future non-disclosure cases under the Australian civil liability legislation. As will become clear, Wallace was fundamentally decided on the basis of policy reasoning centred upon the purpose behind the legal duty violated. Although the plurality in Rogers v Whitaker rejected the utility of expressions such as ‘the patient’s right of self-determination’ in this context, some Australian jurisprudence may be thought to frame the practitioner’s duty to warn in terms of promoting a patient’s autonomy, or right to decide whether to submit to treatment proposed. Accordingly, the impact of Wallace upon the protection of this right, and the interrelation between it and the duty to warn’s purpose, is investigated. The analysis in Part IV also evaluates the courts’ reasoning in Wallace by questioning the extent to which Wallace’s approach to liability and causal connection in non-disclosure of risk cases: depends upon the nature and classification of the risk(s) in question; and can be reconciled with the way in which patients make decisions. Finally, Part V adopts a comparative approach by considering whether the same decision might be reached if Wallace was determined according to English law.

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.

Duty and control in intermediary copyright liability: An Australian perspective

In the internet age, copyright owners are increasingly looking to online intermediaries to take steps to prevent copyright infringement. Sometimes these intermediaries are closely tied to the acts of infringement; sometimes – as in the case of ISPs – they are not. In 2012, the Australian High Court decided the Roadshow Films v iiNet case, in which it held that an Australian ISP was not liable under copyright’s authorization doctrine, which asks whether the intermediary has sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringement. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 directs a court to consider, in these situations, whether the intermediary had the power to prevent the infringement and whether it took any reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the infringement. It is generally not difficult for a court to find the power to prevent infringement – power to prevent can include an unrefined technical ability to disconnect users from the copyright source, such as an ISP terminating users’ internet accounts. In the iiNet case, the High Court eschewed this broad approach in favor of focusing on a notion of control that was influenced by principles of tort law. In tort, when a plaintiff asserts that a defendant should be liable for failing to act to prevent harm caused to the plaintiff by a third party, there is a heavy burden on the plaintiff to show that the defendant had a duty to act. The duty must be clear and specific, and will often hinge on the degree of control that the defendant was able to exercise over the third party. Control in these circumstances relates directly to control over the third party’s actions in inflicting the harm. Thus, in iiNet’s case, the control would need to be directed to the third party’s infringing use of BitTorrent; control over a person’s ability to access the internet is too imprecise. Further, when considering omissions to act, tort law differentiates between the ability to control and the ability to hinder. The ability to control may establish a duty to act, and the court will then look to small measures taken to prevent the harm to determine whether these satisfy the duty. But the ability to hinder will not suffice to establish liability in the absence of control. This article argues that an inquiry grounded in control as defined in tort law would provide a more principled framework for assessing the liability of passive intermediaries in copyright. In particular, it would set a higher, more stable benchmark for determining the copyright liability of passive intermediaries, based on the degree of actual, direct control that the intermediary can exercise over the infringing actions of its users. This approach would provide greater clarity and consistency than has existed to date in this area of copyright law in Australia.

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

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.

Receivers' future liability for costs

In Juniper Property Holdings No.15 Pty Ltd v Caltabiano [2015] QSC 95, Jackson J considered what he described as a 'novel point' as to whether the court had jurisdiction to make a determination of the liability of receivers and managers appointed to the plaintiff to pay any costs orders that may be made in favour of the defendant.

Don't argue with the ref! - Legal liability for incorrect decisions of sports' officials

This paper continues the conversation from recent articles examining potential remedies available for incorrect decisions by sports officials. In particular, this article focuses on bringing an action against an official in negligence for pure economic loss. Using precedent cases, it determines that such an action would have a low chance of success, as a duty of care would be difficult to establish. Even if that could be overcome, an aggrieved player or team would still face further hurdles at the stages of breach, causation and defences. The article concludes by proposing some options to further reduce the small risk of liability to officials.

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.

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!

Social audit failure: Legal liability of external auditors

In this chapter, we look at the step beyond reporting, to the external audit or assurance function. The role of any audit engagement is to provide a professional opinion on a set of financial or non-financial assertions reported by an organization's management, based on an agreed evaluative framework. Any such opinion is not a guarantee that the underlying report is free from fraud or misstatement. Where an audit opinion on financial statements is incorrect, this is referred to as an audit failure. Specifically, the textbook definition of audit failure has two components: that the financial statements contain a serious error and that the auditor has failed to detect the error due to the auditor's failure during the audit process.

Moments of flux in intermediary liability for copyright infringement

This chapter provides an overview of a recent shift in regulatory strategies to address copyright infringement toward enlisting the assistance of general purpose Internet Service Providers. In Australia, the High Court held in 2012 that iiNet, a general purpose ISP, had no legal duty to police what its subscribers did with their internet connections. We provide an overview of three recent developments in Australian copyright law since that decision that demonstrate an emerging shift in the way that obligations are imposed on ISPs to govern the actions of their users without relying on secondary liability. The first is a new privately negotiated industry code that introduces a 'graduated response' system that requires ISPs to pass on warnings to subscribers who receive allegations of infringement. The second involves a recent series of Federal Court cases where rightsholders made a partially successful application to require ISPs to hand over the identifying details of subscribers whose households are alleged to have infringed copyright. The third is a new legislative scheme that will require ISPs to block access to foreign websites that 'facilitate' infringement. We argue that these shifts represent a greater sophistication in approaches to enrolling general purpose intermediaries in the regulatory project. We also suggest that these shifts represent a potentially disturbing trend towards enforcement of copyright law in a way that does not provide strong safeguards for the legitimate constitutional due process interests of users. We conclude with a call for greater attention and research to better understand how intermediaries make decisions when governing the conduct of users, how those decisions may be influenced by both state and non-state actors, and how the rights of individuals to due process can be adequately protected.