Tort law in Australia

Last updated

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.

Contents

Some of these differences include Australia-specific nuances involving: (1) what torts are recognised, (2) the steps to establish liability, and (3) calculations for awards of damages.

These differences have emerged due to both legislative reform, as well as common law developments.

Overview

Throughout Australia's early history, its tort jurisprudence largely complied with UK precedent. In more recent years, its jurisprudence has diverged from the UK and other common law countries.

Developments in Australian Tort law are most powerfully driven by the High Court of Australia. In doing so, the High court frequently refers to other apex courts around the world for comparative law purposes. It has said that it is 'inevitable and desirable that the courts of this country will continue to obtain assistance and guidance from the learning and reasoning of other great common law courts'. [1]

Over the years, differences of application have emerged in Australia's tests for causation, duty of care, calculation of damages, amongst other areas. These have been documented by academics. [2] Specific differences include the 'salient features' framework used to determine a duty of care for negligence, [3] and the lack of an intent element for the tort of trespass. [4]

To the extent tort law is defined by Australia's nationally uniform common law, its tort regime is also nationally unified. [note 1] [5] [6] However, due to the fact that Australian State parliaments are able to modify law within their own jurisdictions through statute; in practice each State has its own quirks. There have been attempts on occasion to unify tort law between the States to some extent. [7]

Statutory reform

Parliaments have occasionally decided it necessary to modify the law of torts to address public concerns. A prominent historical example of this is the 1897 Workmen's Compensation legislation, which was enacted in response a perceived failure of the common law to address risks of harm to workers during industrialisation. [8]

Other major reforms affecting tortious liability has included the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the state Fair Trading Acts.

From the early 1980s legislative intervention attempted to reduce the high volume of litigation involving motor vehicle and industrial accidents. Parallel to the rise of Thatcherism in the United Kingdom, in all Australian states common law torts were significantly modified. Speedy "no fault" compensation was made available to workers and victims of motor vehicle accidents in Tasmania, Victoria and the Northern Territory. [9]

The decline of HIH Insurance, the Ipp Review and beyond

Since 2002 there has been an acceleration of legislative change, driven by a perceived crisis in the price and availability of insurance, which was largely blamed on the law of negligence. [10] The issue became charged politically, reinforced by the direct liability of government and its role as a re-insurer of last resort. New South Wales, the most litigious state, [11] [12] had commenced legislative change prior to 2002. Following the collapse of HIH Insurance and the related escalation in insurance premiums in public liability and medical negligence, the NSW proposals were adopted more widely throughout Australia. [7] [13]

Elements of various torts

Tort of Invasion of privacy

There is currently no freestanding tort for the invasion of privacy in Australian law. In ABC v Lenah Games Meats in 2001, the High Court left open the possibility of the tort being recognised in future. [14] [15] The court has also held that Victoria Park Racing v Taylor [16] did not inhibit the development of privacy law in Australia. [14]

Puisne decisions entertaining the possibility of the tort have occurred in at least two states. [14] One noteworthy decision was a District Court of Queensland award of damages for the invasion of privacy by Judge Skoien. [17] Another was a decision of Justice Gillard of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Giller v Procopets, in which the Court held the law had 'not developed to the point where the law in Australia recognises an action for breach of privacy' [18] Both cases were settled out of court and, as a result, did not proceed to appeal; and so have no value as legal precedent.

The Australian Law Reform Commission has recommended the Commonwealth create a private right to sue for a serious invasion of privacy. [19] The body has argued that by describing the action as a tort, courts will be encouraged to draw upon established principles of tort law (which it hopes would promote a measure of certainty and consistency to the law). [19] It also considers the enactment of such a cause of action would bring Australia into line with recent common law developments concerning serious invasions of privacy in common law jurisdictions. [19]

Defamation

Australia's defamation law emerged from English common law, but has since evolved in application though statute and judicial decisions. To the extent Australia's system retains commonalities with English law, UK jurisprudence retains value as providing guidance to Australian courts.

One key tension in Australia is a need for defamation law to strike an appropriate balance between the protection of an individual's reputation and values relating to free speech; as well as constitutional protections of political communication. Many of the complexities that arise from defamation proceedings are said to derive from judicial attempts to maintain that balance. The decision of Lange v ABC is an example of a case where Australia's constitutional free speech protections were assessed in the context of a defamation proceeding.

Wrongful life

A wrongful life claim is one in which a child plaintiff brings an action against a doctor who negligently diagnosed the plaintiff's mother. Usually, the doctor failed to diagnose rubella during the first trimester, for which there is no cure and which will inevitably cause profound disabilities in the unborn child. Had the mother been correctly diagnosed, she would have exercised her legal right to abortion. [20]

In May 2006, the majority of the High Court rejected wrongful life, refusing to accept that life can be considered a compensable harm. This means that children who are born disabled as a result of a doctor's (admitted) negligence cannot claim damages. [3] [20] [21] Parents are able to pursue 'wrongful birth' claims if the child (disabled or not) is the outcome of a negligently performed sterilisation procedure. [22] However, since the Civil Liability Act, they cannot recover the costs of raising the child in New South Wales. [23]

Litigation

Tort law occupies much of the time of the various Magistrates, Local, District and County Courts and a substantial proportion of the time of the Supreme Courts of each of the states and territories. In addition, there are numerous specialist tribunals dealing with workers' compensation and other cases. Road accident victims are far more likely to make claims and receive tort compensation than any other group [24] This predominance is due not so much to the law of torts, but the fact that liability insurance is compulsory by statute in all Australian states. [25]

List of torts available in Australia

The below is a list of distinct torts relevant to Australian law

Well-established torts

Torts where the availability is not certain

Defunct torts

Notes

    1. ↑ Lipohar v The Queen (‘Lipohar’) (1999) 200 CLR 485

    Related Research Articles

    At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

    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.

    A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

    Although Australia is considered to have, in general, both freedom of speech and a free and independent media, certain subject-matter is subject to various forms of government censorship. These include matters of national security, judicial non-publication or suppression orders, defamation law, the federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), film and literature classification, and advertising restrictions.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Callinan</span> Former Justice of the High Court of Australia

    Ian David Francis Callinan AC KC is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy.

    In the United States, the calculus of negligence, also known as the Hand rule, Hand formula, or BPL formula, is a term coined by Judge Learned Hand which describes a process for determining whether a legal duty of care has been breached. The original description of the calculus was in United States v. Carroll Towing Co., in which an improperly secured barge had drifted away from a pier and caused damage to several other boats.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Duty of care</span> Legal standard of care in activity

    In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.

    In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Exclusion clause</span>

    Exclusion clauses and limitation clauses are terms in a contract which seek to restrict the rights of the parties to the contract.

    Misleading or deceptive conduct is a doctrine of Australian law.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

    Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian contract law</span>

    The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

    Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".

    <i>Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

    Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd is a tort law case from the High Court of Australia, which decided it would abolish the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and the ignis suus principle, incorporating them generally into the tort of negligence.

    Ignis suus, sometimes ignus suus, is a common law principle relating to an occupier's liability over damage caused by the spread of fire. It traditionally imposes strict liability.

    <i>Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor</i> High Court of Australia case

    Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor, commonly referred as the Victoria Park Racing case, is a leading case of the High Court of Australia on determining whether property rights exist, and protecting claims in property for the purposes of tort law. It is also notable in its rejection of the concepts of quasi-property and privacy in the framework of the common law. It has been observed that the concept of property itself cannot be entirely satisfactorily explained without accounting, in some way or other, for the ruling in this case.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Eggshell skull</span> Legal principle

    The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

    There is no absolute right to privacy in Australian law and there is no clearly recognised tort of invasion of privacy or similar remedy available to people who feel their privacy has been violated. Privacy is, however, affected and protected in limited ways by common law in Australia and a range of federal, state and territorial laws, as well as administrative arrangements.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

    Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

    In Australia, defamation refers to the body of law that aims to protect individuals, groups, and entities from false or damaging statements that may cause harm to their reputation or standing in society. Australian defamation law is defined through a combination of common law and statutory law.

    References

    1. ↑ Cook v Cook [1986] HCA 73 , (1986) 162 CLR 376 per Mason. Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ.
    2. ↑ Vout, Paul T (2016). Torts The Laws of Australia. Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. ISBN   9780455238487.
    3. 1 2 Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12 , (2010) 240 CLR 537, High Court.
    4. ↑ Williams v Milotin [1957] HCA 83 , (1957) 97 CLR 465, High Court.
    5. ↑ Boyle, Liam (2015). "An Australian August Corpus: Why There is Only One Common Law in Australia". Bond Law Review. Vol. 27. Archived from the original on 31 July 2017.
    6. ↑ Lange v ABC [1997] HCA 25 at 562–6, 189 CLR 520(8 July 1997)
    7. 1 2 See, e.g., Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW); Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld); Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas); Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA).
    8. ↑ Gardiner, D & McGlone, F (1998). Outline of Torts (2nd ed.). Butterworths. p. 33. citing McGuire v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd [1920] HCA 37 , (1920) 27 CLR 570 at 578-83.
    9. ↑ Drabsch, T (2005). "No Fault Compensation" (PDF). Briefing Paper No 6. Parliamentary Library, NSW. Retrieved 25 May 2017..
    10. ↑ "Final report: no justification for tort reforms". Lawyers Weekly. Lawyers Weekly. 2 March 2012. Retrieved 30 July 2016.
    11. ↑ "NSW slowest in catching murderers on the loose". The Sydney Morning Herald. 28 January 2005.
    12. ↑ Spigelman J (2004). "Tort Law Reform in Australia". Archived from the original on 8 August 2008.
    13. ↑ McDonald, Barbara (2005). "Legislative Intervention in the Law of Negligence: The Common Law, Statutory Interpretation and Tort Reform in Australia". Sydney Law Review. (2005) 27(3) Sydney Law Review 443. Retrieved 5 August 2014.
    14. 1 2 3 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Limited [2001] HCA 63 , (2001) 208 CLR 199; 185 ALR 1, High Court.
    15. ↑ ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63 at [313-[336] per Callinan J.
    16. ↑ Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor [1937] HCA 45 , (1937) 58 CLR 479 , High Court.
    17. ↑ Grosse v Purvis [2003] QDC 151 , District Court (Qld).
    18. ↑ Giller v Procopets [2004] VSC 113 at [188], Supreme Court (Vic).
    19. 1 2 3 Australian Law Reform Commission. "Summary" (PDF). Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era – Final Report (PDF). [2014] Australian Law Reform Commission 123.
    20. 1 2 Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15 , (2006) 226 CLR 52, High Court.
    21. ↑ Waller v James [2006] HCA 16 , (2006) 226 CLR 136, High Court.
    22. ↑ Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38 , (2003) 215 CLR 1, High Court.
    23. ↑ Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 71.
    24. ↑ Graycar, Reg (2002). "Public Liability: A Plea for Facts". University of New South Wales Law Journal. (2002) 25(3) University of New South Wales Law Journal 810.
    25. ↑ Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) s 8 Offence of using uninsured motor vehicle on road.
    26. ↑ Walsh v Ervin [1952] VicLawRp 47 , [1952] VLR 361.
    27. ↑ Mummery v Irvings Pty Ltd [1956] HCA 45 , (1956) 96 CLR 99, High Court.
    28. ↑ Groves v Wimborne [1898] 2 QB 402.
    29. ↑ Best v Samuel Fox & Co Ltd [1952] AC 716.
    30. ↑ Law Reform (Marital Consortium) Act 1984 (NSW) s3.
    31. ↑ Common law (Miscellaneous Actions) Act 1986 (Tas) s3.
    32. ↑ Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941 (WA) s3.
    33. ↑ Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 218.
    34. ↑ Barton v Armstrong [1973] UKPC 27 , [1976] AC 104, Privy Council (on appeal from NSW).
    35. ↑ Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 265 , NSW Court of Appeal.
    36. ↑ Balmain Ferry v Robertson [1906] HCA 83 , (1906) 4 CLR 379 , High Court.
    37. ↑ Bird v Jones [1845] EWHC J64 , (1845) 7 QB 742; 115 ER 668.
    38. ↑ Waldrip v Ciaccia (Civil Dispute) [2015] ACAT 9 , Civil & Administrative Tribunal (ACT).
    39. ↑ Collins v Wilcock (1984) 1 WLR 1172.
    40. ↑ Munro v Southern Dairies Ltd [1955] VicLawRp 60 , [1995] VLR 332, Supreme Court (Vic).
    41. ↑ Stockwell v State of Victoria [2001] VSC 497 , Supreme Court (Vic).
    42. ↑ Challen v The McLeod Country Golf Club [2004] QCA 358 , Court of Appeal (Qld).
    This page is based on this Wikipedia article
    Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
    Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.