Indeterminate liability might be erroneously also known as, otherwise regarded as about, the latest floodgates conflict

Indeterminate liability might be erroneously also known as, otherwise regarded as about, the latest floodgates conflict

(151) The latest South Wales Laws Change Payment, Contribution ranging from People Accountable for a similar Damage, Declaration Zero 89 (1999) [2.3].

The new limitation towards the indeterminate liability has, while we may find, a completely more mission; specifically, ensuring that the fresh obligations try discoverable in advance: see Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australian continent Pty Ltd Aust Torts Reports [paragraph] 81-692, 63 676 (Gillard J)

(152) It’s always of great advantage to an effective plaintiff so you’re able to sue a thus-titled ‘common legislation defendant’ in datingranking.net/escort-directory/new-orleans/ place of a great accused whose accountability is limited by the law.

Which dispute was for this reason geared towards defending the fresh efficient management off fairness

(153) Civil law (Wrongs) Operate 2002 (ACT) s 18; Laws Change (Various Specifications) Act 1946 (NSW) s 5; Rules Change (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1956 (NT) ss a dozen-13; Laws Reform Act 1995 (Qld) ss six-7; Laws Change (Contributory Negligence and you can Apportionment of Liability) Work 2001 (SA) ss 6-7; Wrongs Act 1954 (Tas) s step 3; Wrongs Operate 1958 (Vic) ss 23B, 24; Rules Change (Contributory Negligence and you will Tortfeasors ‘Contribution) Act 1947 (WA) s seven.

(154) Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge ‘Willemstad’ (1976) 136 CLR 529, 555 (Gibbs J), 593 (Mason J); San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (1986) 162 CLR 340, 353-4 (Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson and Dawson JJ); Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609, 618-19 (Mason CJ, Deane and Gaudron JJ); Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 241, 272 (McHugh J), 302 (Gummow J); Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180, 195 (Gleeson CJ), 199-200 (Gaudron J), 219-23, 233-5 (McHugh J), 289 (Kirby J), 303-5 (Hayne J), 324, 326 (Callinan J); Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552, 563-4 (Gleeson CJ); Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562, 582 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne and Callinan JJ); Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 205 ALR 522, 528-9 (Gleeson C J, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ), 534-5, 543 (McHugh J), 562, 565, 566 (Kirby J). The validity of the floodgates argument has generally been treated with great scepticism: see Australian Conservation Foundation IncvCommonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, 557-8 (Murphy J); Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pry Ltd (1999) 167 ALR 575, 614 (Kirby J); Bowen v Paramount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd 1 NZLR 394, 422 (Cooke J); Van Soest v Residual Health Management Unit 1 NZLR 179, 202-4 (Thomas J); Spartan Steel Alloys Ltd v Martin Co (Contractors) Ltd QB 27, 38 (Lord Denning MR); McLoughlin v O’Brian 1 AC 410, 425 (Lord Edmund-Davies), 441-2 (Lord Bridge); Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317, 399-400 (Hayne J); Hancock v Nominal Defendant 1 Qd R 578, 603 (Davies JA). The floodgates argument is sometimes employed by the courts to deny relief where a ‘flood’ of litigants is apprehended if relief were granted: see, eg, Chester v Council of the Municipality of Waverley (1939) 62 CLR 1, 7-8 (Latham CJ), 11 (Rich J); Van Soest v Residual Health Management Unit 1 NZLR 179, 198-9 (Gault, Henry, Keith and Blanchard JJ); Page v Smith 1 AC 155, 197 (Lord Lloyd); White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police 2 AC 455, 493-4 (Lord Steyn), 503 (Lord Hoffmann); Law Commission for England and Wales, Liability for Psychiatric Illness, Report No 249 (1998) [6.6] fn 9 < It plays on the fear that if the net of liability is cast too widely, the courts will be overwhelmed by a proliferation of claims and become congested, thereby diminishing their ability to dispense justice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *