Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - obligation to disclose

In Turpin v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, S5216 of 2001), Mullins J, 17.10.2001) the plaintiff applied for a declaration that the respondent disclose pursuant to s47 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 copies of three statements referred to in a loss assessor's investigation report as "attached". The issue involved determination of whether the statements must be disclosed under s48(2) even though protected by legal professional privilege. The Court applied the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in James v Workcover Queensland.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s 32 - Duty to Disclose - consequences of non-disclosure - discretion to excuse non-compliance

In Newson v Aust Scan Pty Ltd t/a Ikea Springwood [2010] QSC 223 the Supreme Court examined the discretion under s 32(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), to permit a document which has not been disclosed as required by the pre-court procedures under the PIPA to be used in a subsequent court proceeding. This appears to be the first time that the nature and parameters of the discretion have been judicially considered.

UCPR r243 - notice of non-party disclosure - obligation to state allegation to which documents sought are directly relevant

In Deppro Pty Ltd v Hannah [2008] QSC 193 one of the matters considered by the court related to the requirement in r 243 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that a notice of non-party disclosure must “state the allegation in issue in the pleadings about which the document sought is directly relevant.”The approach adopted by the issuing party in this case of asserting that documents sought by a notice of non-party disclosure are relevant to allegations in numbered paragraphs in pleadings, and serving copies of the pleadings with the notice, is not uncommon in practice. This decision makes it clear that this practice is fraught with danger. In circumstances where it is not apparent that the non-party has been fully apprised of the relevant issues the decision suggests an applicant for non-party disclosure who has not complied with the requirements of s 243 might be required to issue a fresh, fully compliant notice, and to suffer associated costs consequences.

Is there an international obligation to prosecute pirates

Combating piracy at sea and apprehending pirates have been a long-standing problem for the global community. Increasing acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia have prompted the UN Security Council to intervene in the matter. The Council, through several resolutions, has authorised states to take action against Somali pirates in the territorial waters and land territory of Somalia and recently adopted a resolution urging all states to fully implement relevant international conventions in their domestic legal systems. However, despite the Security Council's intervention in the matter most states are still reluctant to prosecute Somali pirates in their domestic courts. Considering the most recent Security Council resolution and existing international law, this article examines whether there is an international obligation to criminalise piracy under domestic legal frameworks and to prosecute pirates in domestic courts. It submits that existing international law arguably imposes an obligation to prosecute pirates, at least in certain circumstances, and the recently adopted Security Council resolution reinforces this obligation.

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.

Practice and procedure - Disclosure of documents - application of UCPR r222 to documents referred to in exhibit to affidavit

In Century Drilling Limited v Gerling Australia Insurance Company Pty Limited [2004] QSC 120 Holmes J considered the application of a number of significant rules impacting on the obligation to disclose under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - whether obligation to co-operate may authorise order requiring commencement of proceedings by minor prior to expiration of limitation period

In Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v McPaul; Council of the City of Gold Coast v McPaul [2005] QSC 278 the applicant insurer sought an order requiring a claimant who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident some years earlier when he was five years old to commence a proceeding to determine the question of the applicant's liability to him. The applicant's interest in seeking the order was to avoid the prejudice which could follow from further delay, particularly delay until the respondent became obliged to commence proceedings to avoid a limitations bar.

Multiple Principles and the Obligation to Obey the Law

Nkiruka, A., Multiple Principles and the Obligation to Obey the Law, Deakin Law Review. Vol. 10. No. 2. 2005. p. 524 RAE2008

Ubuntu and the Obligation to Obey the Law

Nkiruka, M., Ubuntu and the Obligation to Obey the Law, Cambrian Law Review. Vol. 37. 2006. p. 17 RAE2008

Studies on Understanding Individual Willingness to Disclose Genetic Information to Public and Private Stakeholders

While technologies for genetic sequencing have increased the promise of personalized medicine, they simultaneously pose threats to personal privacy. The public’s desire to protect itself from unauthorized access to information may limit the uses of this valuable resource. To date, there is limited understanding about the public’s attitudes toward the regulation and sharing of such information. We sought to understand the drivers of individuals’ decisions to disclose genetic information to a third party in a setting where disclosure potentially creates both private and social benefits, but also carries the risk of potential misuse of private information. We conducted two separate but related studies. First, we administered surveys to college students and parents, to determine individual attitudes toward and inter-generational influences on the disclosure decision. Second, we conducted a game-theory based experiment that assessed how participants’ decisions to disclose genetic information are influenced by societal and health factors. Key survey findings indicate that concerns about genetic information privacy negatively impact the likelihood of disclosure while the perceived benefits of disclosure and trust in the institution receiving the information have a positive influence. The experiment results also show that the risk of discrimination negatively affects the likelihood of disclosure, while the positive impact that disclosure has on the probability of finding a cure and the presence of a monetary incentive to disclose, increase the likelihood. We also study the determinants of individuals’ decision to be informed of findings about their health, and how information about health status is used for financial decisions.

The obligation to provide information where valid consent is not needed

Accounts of consent in medical ethics typically assume that consent plays the same role irrespective of the type of treatment. In this paper I argue that this assumption is false. Because of this, obligations to provide information to patients that stem from the need for consent to be valid will not apply to all types of treatment. This does not mean that there are no reasons to provide such information. The second part of the paper maps out what these reasons are and argues that they are grounded in the obligation of beneficence and a duty to warn, not in considerations of respect for autonomy.