ON 11 JUNE 1985, the High Court of Australia delivered Mahony v J Kruschich (Demolitions) Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 37; (1985) 156 CLR 522 (11 June 1985).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/37.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Category Archives: LAW FIRM
R v Chin [1985] HCA 35
ON 29 MAY 1985, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Chin [1985] HCA 35; (1985) 157 CLR 671 (29 May 1985).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/157clr671.html
1300 00 2088
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 34
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 34; 59 ALJR 492; 59 ALR 529 (29 May 1985).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/34.html
“The making of an apportionment as between a plaintiff and a defendant of their respective shares in the responsibility for the damage involves a comparison both of culpability, i.e. of the degree of departure from the standard of care of the reasonable man (Pennington v. Norris [1956] HCA 26; (1956) 96 CLR 10, at p 16) and of the relative importance of the acts of the parties in causing the damage: Stapley v. Gypsum Mines Ltd. [1953] UKHL 4; (1953) AC 663, at p 682; Smith v. McIntyre [1958] TASStRp 11; (1958) Tas.SR 36, at pp 42-49 and Broadhurst v. Millman [1976] VicRp 15; (1976) VR 208, at p 219 and cases there cited. It is the whole conduct of each negligent party in relation to the circumstances of the accident which must be subjected to comparative examination. The significance of the various elements involved in such an examination will vary from case to case; for example, the circumstances of some cases may be such that a comparison of the relative importance of the acts of the parties in causing the damage will be of little, if any, importance.”
1300 00 2088
Re Bevanere Pty Limited v Gaetan Djino Lubidineuse [1985] FCA 134
Re Bevanere Pty Limited v Gaetan Djino Lubidineuse; Suzette Mauricette Lubidineuse; Robert Gervais Lezare and Brigitte Margareet Lezare [1985] FCA 134; (1985) 7 FCR 325; 59 ALR 334 (1985) Atpr Para 40 – 565 (24 April 1985).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1985/134.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
R v Crabbe [1985] HCA 22
ON 26 MARCH 1985, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Crabbe [1985] HCA 22; (1985) 156 CLR 464 (26 March 1985). Douglas Crabbe killed five people and injured many more when he drove a Mack truck into a bar at Uluru after being refused service of alcohol. He was tried for murder on the grounds of recklessness as opposed to intent.
“…a person who, without lawful justification or excuse, does an act knowing that it is probable that death or grievous bodily harm will result, is guilty of murder if death in fact results.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 1) [1985] HCA 8
ON 27 FEBRUARY 1985, the High Court of Australia delivered Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 1) [1985] HCA 8; (1985) 159 CLR 351 (27 February 1985).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/8.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Hackshaw v Shaw [1984] HCA 84
ON 11 DECEBER 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Hackshaw v Shaw [1984] HCA 84; (1984) 155 CLR 614 (11 December 1984).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/84.html
An occupier of land owes a duty of care to a trespasser if it is foreseeable that the trespasser could be injured by the occupier’s negligence.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poteoa1997455
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Re Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green [1984] HCA 82
Re Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green [1984] HCA 82; (1984) 156 CLR 185 (6 December 1984).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/156clr185.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64
ON 25 OCTOBER 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64; (1984) 156 CLR 41 (25 October 1984).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/64.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Kondis v State Transport Authority (formerly Victorian Railways Board) [1984] HCA 61
ON 16 OCTOBER 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Kondis v State Transport Authority (formerly Victorian Railways Board) [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672 (16 October 1984).
The High Court ruled that a special duty of care by an employer to an employee to provide a safe system of work is non-delegable.
The Victorian State Transit Authority engaged an independent contractor to dismantle a crane in a railway yard. Kondis injured his back when a metal pin fell from the crane. Kondis sued the State Transit Authority. The High Court held that the State Transit Authority, as employer, was liable for the harm caused by the independent contractor because their failure to adopt a safe system of work was a breach of the employer’s non-delegable duty of care.
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 