Vulnerability held not to be pre-requisite for establishing a duty of care in claims of pure economic Loss

Case note Apache Energy Ltd v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (No 2) [2013] In 2011, headlines were made when Alcoa sued Apache Energy and its partners for $158 million, a loss it claimed was a consequence of Apache Energy failing to adequately inspect and maintain the gas pipelines that supplied the gas used by Alcoa in its business. As the loss was not a consequence of any property damage or injury to Alcoa, the loss is characterised as pure economic loss...

When two wrongs don't make it proportionate.

In Hobbs Haulage Pty Ltd v Zupps Southside Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 319 Jackson J considered the application of the concurrent liability provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).

Statute bar remains firm

In Hall v Don Faulkner Motors Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 331 Mullins j considered some significant questions relating to the construction of s11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) as that provision relates to dependency claims.

Practice & procedure : gratuitous services

In Carroll v Coomber [2006] QDC 146 the plainliff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on September 7, 2003. Liability was admitted and it remained to assess the plaintiff's damages. In light of the date of the accident, the damages were to be assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (the act) and the Civil Liability Regulations.

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.

Planes, trains, automobiles and the action per quod servitium amisit

The action per quod servitium amisit compensates an employer for the loss of an employee’s services, where such loss is caused due to the commission of a tort by a third party which injures the employee. Although not commonly pleaded, such actions often arise when employees are harmed due to transportation accidents. For example, where allowed, physical injury caused by the negligent driving of automobiles, and the psychiatric injury suffered by an engine driver upon averting a collision with a motorcyclist crossing before an oncoming train...

Civil litigation limitation periods : submission to the Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse

This submission makes one simple yet powerful recommendation for law reform to promote justice for survivors of child sexual abuse. It is informed by extensive analyses of the phenomenon of child sexual abuse and its psychological sequelae, legislative time limits and case law across Australia and internationally, the policy reasons underpinning statutory time limits generally, and the need for fairness, certainty and practicability in the legal system. The recommendation is that legislative reform is required in all Australian States and Territories to remove time limitations for civil claims for injuries caused by child sexual abuse.

Assessment of damages for defamation of business and personal reputation

An award of damages for defamation is to provide reparation for harm to a plaintiff’s reputation for the publication of defamatory material, compensate for any personal distress caused and vindicate the plaintiff’s reputation.1 Assessing such damages is recognised as a difficult task and perhaps the Queensland courts face further difficulties as there are few awards of damages for defamation in the state. This was pointed out in the recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, Cerutti & Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd & Anor.2 This decision examined in detail the principles of assessing damages for defamation.

Case note : Keegan v Sussan Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd

A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court highlights that merely having a policy in a workplace is not sufficient in itself – the policy must be implemented and followed if an employer wishes to establish that it is not in breach of its duty of care owed to employees. In Keegan v Sussan Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd an employee successfully sued in negligence for her psychiatric injury caused by her employer’s failure to follow its bullying and harassment policy.

Nondelegable duty : the implications of Woodland v Essex County Council

English law has long recognised that nondelagable duties exist, but it does not have a single theory to explain when or why - arguable, one might add, until now. That is the value of the reasons for judgement in Woodland v Essex County Council.

Assessment of damages in wrongful birth cases

More than ten years has passed since the High Court of Australia confirmed the recoverability of damages for the cost of raising a child in the well know decision of Cattanach v Melchior . A recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was widely anticipated as potentially providing a comprehensive discussion of the principles relevant to the assessment of damages in wrongful birth cases.