ON 1 APRIL 1974, the Accident Compensation Act 1972 (NZ) abolished the common law right to sue for compensatory damages for personal injuries in New Zealand. The Act introduced a no-fault universal insurance scheme providing limited financial compensation for treatment, rehabilitation and loss of earnings.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Baker v Willoughby [1969] UKHL 8 [1969] 3 All ER 1528.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1969/8.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
SYDNEY SOLICITORS. ON 11 NOVEMBER 1968, the High Court of Australia delivered Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1968] HCA 74; (1968) 122 CLR 556 (11 November 1968).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1968/74.html
The High Court of Australia first recognised liability for negligent misstatement.
Barwick CJ at 572 stated that there is a duty of care “whenever a person gives information or advice to another … upon a serious matter … and the relationship … arising out of the circumstances is such that on the one hand the speaker realizes or ought to realize that he is being trusted … to give the best of his information or advice as a basis for action on the part of the other party and it is reasonable in the circumstances for the other party to seek or accept and in either case to act upon that information and advice”.
1300 00 2088
SYDNEY LAWYERS. ON 11 NOVEMBER 1968, the High Court of Australia delivered Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1968] HCA 74; (1968) 122 CLR 556 (11 November 1968).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1968/74.html
The High Court of Australia first recognised liability for negligent misstatement.
Barwick CJ at 572 stated that there is a duty of care “whenever a person gives information or advice to another … upon a serious matter … and the relationship … arising out of the circumstances is such that on the one hand the speaker realizes or ought to realize that he is being trusted … to give the best of his information or advice as a basis for action on the part of the other party and it is reasonable in the circumstances for the other party to seek or accept and in either case to act upon that information and advice”.
1300 00 2088
ON 11 NOVEMBER 1968, the High Court of Australia delivered Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1968] HCA 74; (1968) 122 CLR 556 (11 November 1968).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1968/74.html
The High Court of Australia first recognised liability for negligent misstatement.
Barwick CJ at 572 stated that there is a duty of care “whenever a person gives information or advice to another … upon a serious matter … and the relationship … arising out of the circumstances is such that on the one hand the speaker realizes or ought to realize that he is being trusted … to give the best of his information or advice as a basis for action on the part of the other party and it is reasonable in the circumstances for the other party to seek or accept and in either case to act upon that information and advice”.
1300 00 2088
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).
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.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 28 MAY 1963, the House of Lords delivered Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners a Ltd [1964] AC 465; [1963] UKHL (28 May 1963).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1963/4.html
A negligent, although honest representation, may give rise to an action for damages for financial loss even if there was no contract between the advisor and the advisee and no fiduciary relationship. The law will imply a duty of care when the advisee seeks information from the advisor who has a special skill and where the advisee trusts the advisor to exercise due care, and that the advisor knew or ought to have known that reliance was being placed upon his skill and judgment.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 8 AUGUST 1961, the High Court of Australia delivered Chapman v Hearse [1961] HCA 46; (1961) 106 CLR 112 (8 August 1961).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1961/46.html
Chapman negligently drove his vehicle causing it to collide with another vehicle and overturn. Chapman was ejected from his vehicle and came to rest unconscious on the roadway. Dr Cherry came to Chapman’s assistance but was struck and fatally injured by a vehicle driven by Hearse who had negligently failed to see him.
The executor or the estate of Dr Cherry sued Hearse in the Supreme Court of South Australia for damages arising from the doctor’s death.
The Chief Justice of the South Australian Supreme Court found Hearse to be liable, ordering him to pay damages but also ordered that Chapman should contribute one quarter of that sum.
Chapman appealed to the South Australian Court of Appeal, who dismissed the appeal.
Chapman appealed against the decision in the High Court, arguing that (1) Chapman owed Dr Cherry no duty of care as it was not reasonably foreseeable (2) Dr Cherry’s death was caused solely by the negligence of Hearse and (3) the damage was to remote in any case.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. On the questions of duty and remoteness, the High Court held that Chapman did owe Dr Cherry a duty of care as it was “sufficient in the circumstances of this case to ask whether a consequence of the same general character as that which followed was reasonably foreseeable as one not unlikely to follow a collision between two vehicles on a dark wet night upon a busy highway”. In essence, the court held that one is liable for all damage which is of the same general nature as that which could be reasonably foreseen.
On the question of causation, the court held that a wrongful intervening act does not of itself break the chain of causation as long as the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable.
1300 00 2088
ON 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd (“Wagon Mound No 1”) [1961] UKPC 1 (18 January 1961)
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1961/1.html
In cases of negligence, the defendant is not liable for damage just because it was a direct result of a negligent act. The Privy Council ruled that the “essential factor in determining liability is whether the damage is of such a kind as the reasonable man should have foreseen” (at 426).
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 10 AUGUST 1956, the High Court of Australia delivered Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd [1956] HCA 42; (1956) 96 CLR 18 (10 August 1956).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1956/42.html
The duty of care of a reasonably prudent employer is “a duty to take reasonble care to avoid exposing the employees to unnecessary risks of injury” (per Dixon CJ and Kitto J at 25) and “a duty to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to provide a safe system of working” (per Fullagar J at 34).
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 