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
Tag Archives: LOWER NORTH SHORE
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
Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52
ON 20 AUGUST 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52; (1984) 155 CLR 549 (20 August 1984).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/52.html
A plaintiff suffered nervous shock when immediately after an accident she saw her injured husband in hospital and was told of the seriousness of his injuries.
The High Court extended the class of persons to whom a duty of care is owed to those who, although not present at the scene of an accident, are at risk of suffering psychiatric injury by personally perceiving the direct and immediate aftermath of the accident in which a person with whom they are in a “close or intimate relationship” with is negligently injured or killed.
The duty of care was characterised as arising from the injury being reasonably foreseeable and sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant.
1300 00 2088
Lowe v R [1984] 154 CLR 606
ON 2 AUGUST 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606 (2 August 1984).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/46.html
The case sets out the principle of due proportionality to be imposed by Australian courts when sentencing criminal offenders.
Whilst co-offenders do not have to receive the same sentence for the same offence, any discrepancy must not give the sense or appearance of their being an injustice done to the offender with the heavier sentence.
At 623, Dawson J (with whom WIlson J agreed) said:
“There is no rule of law which requires co-offenders to be given the same sentence for the same offence even if no distinction can be drawn between them. Obviously where the circumstances of each offender or his involvement in the offence are different then different sentences may be called for but justice should be even-handed and it has come to be recognised both here and in England that any difference between the sentences imposed upon co-offenders for the same offence ought not to be such as to give rise to a justifiable sense of a grievance on the part of the offender with the heavier sentence or to give the appearance that justice has not been done.”
The principle is an application of the fundamental principle of equality of justice. At 610, Mason J observed:
“Just as consistency in punishment — a reflection of the notion of equal justice — is a fundamental element in any rational and fair system of criminal justice, so inconsistency in punishment, because it is regarded as a badge of unfairness and unequal treatment under the law, is calculated to lead to an erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice. It is for this reason that the avoidance and elimination of unjustifiable discrepancy in sentencing is a matter of abiding importance to the administration of justice and to the community.”
The parity principle only applies to co-offenders: per Gibbs CJ at 609, Mason J at 611 and Brennan J at 617-618.
Disparity may be an indicator of appelable error: per Brennan J at 617-618.
1300 00 2088
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
ON 1 AUGUST 1984, the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 commenced.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/
1300 00 2088
Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)
ON 25 JUNE 1984, the Commonwealth Insurance Contracts Act 1984 was enacted.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ica1984220/
The Act introduced a range of measures to promote good faith and fairness in contractual dealings between insurers and their insured.
1300 00 2088
R v Apostilides [1984] HCA 38
ON 19 JUNE 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Apostilides [1984] HCA 38; (1984) 154 CLR 563 (19 June 1984).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/154clr563.html
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 