All posts by Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW, Federal Court and High Court of Australia. Public Notary in the State of New South Wales.
Defences, Duty of Care, Immunities, LAW FIRM, Negligence

Brodie v Singleton Shire Council [2001] HCA 29 | 31 May 2001

ON THIS DAY in 2001, the High Court of Australia delivered Brodie v Singleton Shire Council ; Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council[2001] HCA 29; (2001) 206 CLR 512.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/29.html

“Negligence – Highways – Injuries to user of highway – Liability of highway authority – Whether immunity under the “highway rule” – Distinction between misfeasance and non-feasance.

Negligence – Duty of care – Statutory authority – Highway authority – Content of duty of care – Relevant considerations.

Negligence and nuisance – Whether nuisance in relation to public authorities subsumed by the law of negligence.

Highways – Negligence and nuisance – Immunity under “highway rule” – Misfeasance and non-feasance – Whether liability subsumed in general principles of negligence.

Precedent – Stare decisis – High Court – Departure from previous decisions – Relevant considerations.

Words and phrases – “highway rule” – “immunity”.

Local Government Act 1919 (NSW), ss 220-277B.”

The ruling abolished the common law immunity of highway authorities from liability for injury, loss or damage caused by their own non-feasance in Australia.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, LAW FIRM

Oscar Wilde | 25 May 1895

ON THIS DAY in 1895, Oscar Wilde was convicted of gross indecency and sentenced to two years hard labour.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=def1-425-18950520&div=t18950520-425#highlight

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Negligence, Nuisance, Torts

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound No 2) [1966] UKPC 1 | 25 May 1996

ON 25 MAY 1966, the Privy Council delivered Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound No 2) [1966] UKPC 1 (25 May 1966).

Negligence – reasonably forseeable

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1966/1.html

A person is negligent if they fail to prevent a real risk that is reasonably foreseeable. A real risk is one in the mind of a reasonable person “which he would not brush aside as far-fetched”. This does not depend on the actual risk of occurrence.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Human Rights, LAW FIRM, Law reform, Legislation

Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 | 25 May 1995

ON 25 MAY 1995, the Northern Territory Parliament passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/rottia294

The Act, which took effect on 1 July 1996, legalised euthanasia in the Northern Territory until the Commonwealth Parliament subsequently enacted the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Personal Injury, Torts, Work injuries

Negligence – Duty of care – Safe system of work – Work injury

ON THIS DAY in 1986, the High Court of Australia delivered Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] HCA 20; (1986) 160 CLR 301 (13 May 1986).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/20.html

“Negligence – Master and servant – Duty of care – Safe system of work – Employer’s duty to provide – Scope of duty – Contributory negligence.”

Braistina was a metal trades worker employed by Bankstown Foundry. As part of his duties he drilled holes in cast iron pipes weighing about 60 pounds. He was required to lift about 40 pipes an hour from a pallet onto a drilling machine and then onto another pallet after the drilling.

On a particular shift, Braistina injured his neck after drilling about 115 pipes over a three hour period. Medical evidence showed that the lifting and twisting made the risk of injury foreseeable and not far fetched and fanciful.

A hoist was readily available but not used. The use of the hoist was not impracticable, caused no undue expense or nor any difficulty. Had the hoist been used the risk of injury would have been eliminated.

The court held that in the circumstances, a prudent employer would reasonably require that the hoist be used.

An employer must take reasonable steps to enforce a safe system of work, otherwise they are in breach of their duty of care to the employee and will be found negligent and liable for the injury, loss and damage suffered by the employee.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Personal Injury, Torts, Work injuries

Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] HCA 20 | 13 May 1986

ON THIS DAY in 1986, the High Court of Australia delivered Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] HCA 20; (1986) 160 CLR 301 (13 May 1986).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/20.html

“Negligence – Master and servant – Duty of care – Safe system of work – Employer’s duty to provide – Scope of duty – Contributory negligence.”

Braistina was a metal trades worker employed by Bankstown Foundry. As part of his duties he drilled holes in cast iron pipes weighing about 60 pounds. He was required to lift about 40 pipes an hour from a pallet onto a drilling machine and then onto another pallet after the drilling.

On a particular shift, Braistina injured his neck after drilling about 115 pipes over a three hour period. Medical evidence showed that the lifting and twisting made the risk of injury foreseeable and not far fetched and fanciful.

A hoist was readily available but not used. The use of the hoist was not impracticable, caused no undue expense or nor any difficulty. Had the hoist been used the risk of injury would have been eliminated.

The court held that in the circumstances, a prudent employer would reasonably require that the hoist be used.

An employer must take reasonable steps to enforce a safe system of work, otherwise they are in breach of their duty of care to the employee and will be found negligent and liable for the injury, loss and damage suffered by the employee.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Commercial Law, Contract, Equity, LAW FIRM

Equity – Guarantee – Mortgage – Guarantor under disability – Setting aside – Unconscionable bargain – Misrepresentation

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14; (1983) 151 CLR 447 (12 May 1983).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/14.html

“Equity – Mortgage and guarantee – Right to set aside – Unusual transactions between bank and customer – Bank’s failure to disclose to mortgagor guarantor – Misrepresentation.

Guarantee – Guarantor under disability – Dealing with bank – Bank knowing of disability – Unconscionable bargain – Onus of proof – Whether transaction should be set aside unconditionally.”

An elderly Italian migrant couple had mortgaged land they owned as a guarantee for a loan from the bank to their son’s business. The business then went into liquidation and the bank demanded payment of the guarantee and then attempted to exercise a power of sale over the land.

The Amadios argued that the guarantee and mortgage should set aside as:

  • they spoke limited English;
  • they did not receive independent advice and were not advised to do so;
  • they were not aware of their son’s financial situation, although the bank was; and
  • they mistakenly believed that the liability was limited to $50,000.

The court held that the mortgage and guarantee must be set aside as it was unconscionable for the bank to enter into those transactions in circumstances where the bank through it’s superior bargaining power had gained an unconscientious advantage to the detriment of the Amadios who suffered a special disability.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Commercial Law, Contract, Equity, LAW FIRM

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14 | 12 May 1983

ON THIS DAY in 1983, the High Court of Australia delivered Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14; (1983) 151 CLR 447 (12 May 1983).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/14.html

“Equity – Mortgage and guarantee – Right to set aside – Unusual transactions between bank and customer – Bank’s failure to disclose to mortgagor guarantor – Misrepresentation.

Guarantee – Guarantor under disability – Dealing with bank – Bank knowing of disability – Unconscionable bargain – Onus of proof – Whether transaction should be set aside unconditionally.”

An elderly Italian migrant couple had mortgaged land they owned as a guarantee for a loan from the bank to their son’s business. The business then went into liquidation and the bank demanded payment of the guarantee and then attempted to exercise a power of sale over the land.

The Amadios argued that the guarantee and mortgage should set aside as:

  • they spoke limited English;
  • they did not receive independent advice and were not advised to do so;
  • they were not aware of their son’s financial situation, although the bank was; and
  • they mistakenly believed that the liability was limited to $50,000.

The court held that the mortgage and guarantee must be set aside as it was unconscionable for the bank to enter into those transactions in circumstances where the bank through it’s superior bargaining power had gained an unconscientious advantage to the detriment of the Amadios who suffered a special disability.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Contract, Injunctions, LAW FIRM

Contract – Implied terms – Frustration – Injunction – Extrinsic evidence of intention

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24; (1982) 149 CLR 337 (11 May 1982).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1982/24.html

“Contract – Construction – Implied terms – Frustration – Contract to carry out excavations for rail authority – Completion required by certain date – Contractor working three shifts seven days per week – Injunction granted to third party restraining contractor from working at certain times – Whether implied term of contract that authority would grant reasonable extension of time and indemnify contractor against additional costs occasioned by grant of injunction – Whether injunction frustrated contract – Extrinsic evidence of intention.
Arbitration – Jurisdiction to entertain claim that contract frustrated – Power to award interest on award – Compound interest – Supreme Court Act 1970 (N.S.W.), s. 94(1).”

Codelfa contracted with the State Rail Authority’s predecessor, the NSW Commissioner for Railways, to perform the excavations on Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs railway. It was agreed that Codelfa would perform three shifts per day over a fixed period, but they were unable to meet this requirement because of injunctions brought by local residents.

Codelfa sought damages from the SRA on two grounds: (1) that there was an implied term that if they were restrained by injunctions the SRA would extend time for completion or would indemnify Codelfa for any losses caused by the injunctions; in the alternative, (2) that the contract was frustrated by the injunctions.

Mason J at 352 observed that the “true rule” regarding the admission of evidence of the surrounding circumstances is that such evidence is admissible if the language of the contract is ambiguous or capable of more than one meaning but is not admissible to contradict the language which has a plain meaning.

The court held that there was no implied term. Even if a term needed to be implied to give efficacy to the contract, the was not a term “so obvious it goes without saying”. The court referred with approval to its earlier decision in Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 51; (1979) 144 CLR 596.

Codelfa was nevertheless successful with the court holding that the contract was frustrated because “the performance of the contract in the events which have occurred is radically different from performance of the contract in the circumstances which it, construed in the light of surrounding circumstances, contemplated”.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Contract, Injunctions, LAW FIRM

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24 | 11 May 1982

ON THIS DAY in 1982, the High Court of Australia delivered Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24; (1982) 149 CLR 337 (11 May 1982).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1982/24.html

“Contract – Construction – Implied terms – Frustration – Contract to carry out excavations for rail authority – Completion required by certain date – Contractor working three shifts seven days per week – Injunction granted to third party restraining contractor from working at certain times – Whether implied term of contract that authority would grant reasonable extension of time and indemnify contractor against additional costs occasioned by grant of injunction – Whether injunction frustrated contract – Extrinsic evidence of intention.
Arbitration – Jurisdiction to entertain claim that contract frustrated – Power to award interest on award – Compound interest – Supreme Court Act 1970 (N.S.W.), s. 94(1).”

Codelfa contracted with the State Rail Authority’s predecessor, the NSW Commissioner for Railways, to perform the excavations on Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs railway. It was agreed that Codelfa would perform three shifts per day over a fixed period, but they were unable to meet this requirement because of injunctions brought by local residents.

Codelfa sought damages from the SRA on two grounds: (1) that there was an implied term that if they were restrained by injunctions the SRA would extend time for completion or would indemnify Codelfa for any losses caused by the injunctions; in the alternative, (2) that the contract was frustrated by the injunctions.

Mason J at 352 observed that the “true rule” regarding the admission of evidence of the surrounding circumstances is that such evidence is admissible if the language of the contract is ambiguous or capable of more than one meaning but is not admissible to contradict the language which has a plain meaning.

The court held that there was no implied term. Even if a term needed to be implied to give efficacy to the contract, the was not a term “so obvious it goes without saying”. The court referred with approval to its earlier decision in Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 51; (1979) 144 CLR 596.

Codelfa was nevertheless successful with the court holding that the contract was frustrated because “the performance of the contract in the events which have occurred is radically different from performance of the contract in the circumstances which it, construed in the light of surrounding circumstances, contemplated”.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088