Indeterminate responsibility is often mistakenly known as, otherwise perceived as regarding, brand new floodgates conflict

Indeterminate responsibility is often mistakenly known as, otherwise perceived as regarding, brand new floodgates conflict

(151) The new Southern area Wales Laws Change Commission, Share ranging from Persons Liable for an identical Destroy, Declaration Zero 89 (1999) [2.3].

The fresh limitation with the indeterminate liability have, while we will find, an entirely additional objective; namely, making certain that the brand new obligations was discoverable beforehand: pick Johnson Ceramic tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australian continent Pty Ltd Aust Torts Accounts [paragraph] 81-692, 63 676 (Gillard J)

(152) It is usually of good benefit to a plaintiff to help you sue a very-entitled ‘common legislation defendant’ as opposed to good defendant whoever liability is limited by statute.

That it conflict was ergo targeted at safeguarding new effective management of fairness

(153) Civil law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 18; Legislation Change (Miscellaneous Specifications) Work 1946 (NSW) s 5; Legislation Change (Miscellaneous Provisions) Work 1956 (NT) ss several-13; Legislation Change Work 1995 (Qld) ss six-7; Laws Reform (Contributory Neglect and you can Apportionment out of Responsibility) Operate 2001 (SA) ss 6-7; Wrongs Operate 1954 (Tas) s 3; Wrongs Operate 1958 (Vic) ss 23B, 24; Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and you can Tortfeasors ‘Contribution) Act 1947 (WA) s eight.

(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) go to this web-site. 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.