Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". The rationale behind issue preclusion is the prevention of legal harassment and the prevention of overuse or abuse of judicial resources.
Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person so prevented is said to be "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. Estoppel is also a concept in international law.
Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar relitigation of a claim between the same parties.
The system of tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.
Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.
In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.
Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 17 June 1999. The case concerned the constitutional validity of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, in particular, the vesting of state companies law jurisdiction in the Federal Court.
An arbitration award is a determination on the merits by an arbitration tribunal in an arbitration, and is analogous to a judgment in a court of law. It is referred to as an 'award' even where all of the claimant's claims fail, or the award is of a non-monetary nature.
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a High Court of Australia case that upheld the existence of an implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution, but found that it did not necessarily provide a defence to a defamation action. The High Court extended the defence of qualified privilege to be compatible with the freedom of political communication.
Introduction: Issue Preclusion
Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1948 in which the Court outlined the scope of collateral estoppel or estoppel by judgment in determinations of federal tax liability. This was important because a single controversial circumstance may have a bearing on income tax liability for several years. Res judicata, as part of the doctrine of judicial finality, protects a taxpayer's tax liability for a given year once the taxpayer wins a judgment in court. The judgment is controlling not only controlling with regard to the issues litigated but also with any issues that could have been raised if they would have affected the determination of tax liability for the year. However, of course, a single controversial circumstance may have a bearing on income tax liability for several years, and if a judgment fixes liability for one of the years, res judiciary forecloses the reopening of only that year's liability. But the related doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues that were in fact raised and decided in the earlier litigation, even when they arise in a new cause of action, such as a dispute as to liability for a later year.
Henderson v Defence Housing Authority, also known as the Residential Tenancies case, is a landmark Australian High Court decision on intergovernmental immunity and states' rights under the Australian Constitution.
Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim Group v Commonwealth of Australia [2013] HCA 33; 250 CLR 209 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to Native title rights, their extension to other persons and their extinguishment by Statute.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co[2000] UKHL 65 is a leading UK company law decision of the House of Lords concerning (1) abuse of process relating to litigating issues which have already been determined in prior litigation or by way of settlement, (2) estoppel by convention, and (3) reflective loss of a shareholder with respect to damage which was done to the company in which he holds shares.
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313 was a decision of the English Court of Chancery which confirmed that a party may not raise any claim in subsequent litigation which they ought properly to have raised in a previous action. The case remains good law, and is still cited as authority for the original principle today.
Commonwealth v Verwayen, also known as the Voyager case, is a leading case involving estoppel in Australia. Bernard Verwayen sued the Australian government for damages caused by a collision between two ships of the Australian Navy. A representative of the Government initially indicated to Bernard Verwayen that the Government would not raise the statute of limitations as a defence to their negligence. In court however, the Government relied on this defence. While the decision of the High Court was split, a majority of judges found that the Government could not rely on this statement as a defence. Justices Toohey and Gaudron came to this conclusion on the basis that the Government had waived their right to rely on this defence. However, Justices Deane and Dawson came to this conclusion under the doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a defendant can not contradict a previous representation or promise made that has established an assumed state of legal affairs. This case is most frequently referred to in relation to its influence on the doctrine of estoppel.
Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, also known as Farah, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to equity, property, unjust enrichment, and constructive trusts, as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia.
