Liability

• Some traditions need to change: students and sexual abuse

  3rd Aug 2017

  AHRC released a report on sexual assault and harassment of university students. The report details disturbing instances of sexual assault and harassment.

• Linton Sayer v Melsteel in the Supreme Court of Victoria, June 2017

  6th Jul 2017

  The plaintiff had been in continuous employment since the age of 16. He commenced employment with the defendant, as a boilermaker, in 2006. As and from 2008, Mr Savage became his supervisor and problems started to occur.

• The slippery grape strikes again

  6th Apr 2017

  The recent New South Wales District Court decision in Guru v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (2016) NSWDC 349 further illustrates the duty owed by supermarkets to lawful entrants to their stores.

• Nervous shock & psychiatric claims after the loss of a child

  16th Feb 2017

  The law in Australia as it currently stands has the capacity to compound a parent’s grief in such circumstances and generate more than justified contempt towards the legal system. Particularly given the widely accepted view across the community would be that entitlement to compensation in such horrific circumstances would be considered both reasonable and appropriate.

• Teen burn victim claims against party host

  25th Jan 2017

  In 2013, a 16-year-old girl suffered third degree burns to 42% of her body at a house party when a teenage boy poured an accelerant on to an open fire at a house party. In July 2016, the Brisbane Times reported that the young woman is attempting to claim almost $12m in compensation for her ordeal.

• Liability to entrants to the family castle

  7th Dec 2016

  The Supreme Court of Queensland’s decision in Chandler v Silwood [2016] QSC 90, delivered by Holmes CJ and recently upheld on appeal, further highlights the duty of care owed by owner/occupiers of family homes towards those lawfully entering the property.

• Drone safety is paramount and requires forward thinking Australian law

  2nd Sep 2016

  Liability for drone injuries applies to operators or controllers pursuant to the Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 (Cth) which sets up a domestic strict liability regime for compensation for those injured on the ground by aircraft, mirroring international provisions which accomplish the same purpose. However, the technical and regulatory landscape in Australia is such that the owner of a drone or its operator are notoriously difficult to identify, and thus pursue, after an incident. There is no federal requirement on the owner or operator to be insured for liability for damages.  No legislation presently requires registration of non-commercial operators and their equipment.  This is problematic because the drones themselves are fairly unreliable.