Indeterminate liability is frequently wrongly referred to as, or regarded as regarding, the fresh floodgates disagreement

Indeterminate liability is frequently wrongly referred to as, or regarded as regarding, the fresh floodgates disagreement

(151) The latest South Wales Law Change Fee, Sum ranging from People Liable for the same Damage, Declaration Zero 89 (1999) [2.3].

The fresh maximum on the indeterminate responsibility possess, once we may find, a totally additional purpose; namely, ensuring that the fresh new debts try discoverable ahead: see Johnson Ceramic tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australian continent Pty Ltd Aust Torts Account [paragraph] 81-692, 63 676 (Gillard J)

(152) It is usually of great advantage to an excellent plaintiff to help you sue a therefore-named ‘common laws defendant’ in place of an effective accused whose liability is restricted because of the statute.

That it conflict are ergo targeted at safeguarding brand new successful management from justice

(153) Civil law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 18; Laws Change (Various Specifications) Act 1946 (NSW) s 5; Legislation Change (Miscellaneous Arrangements) Act 1956 (NT) ss 12-13; Rules Change Work 1995 (Qld) ss 6-7; Rules Change (Contributory Negligence and you can Apportionment away from Accountability) Act 2001 (SA) ss 6-7; Wrongs Act 1954 (Tas) s 3; Wrongs Work 1958 (Vic) ss 23B, 24; Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and you may Tortfeasors ‘Contribution) Act 1947 (WA) s seven.

(154) Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge ‘Willemstad’ (1976) 136 CLR 529, 555 (Gibbs J), 593 (Mason J); San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (1986) 162 CLR 340, 353-4 (Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson and Dawson JJ); Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609, 618-19 (Mason CJ, Deane and Gaudron JJ); Esanda Finance Corporation Clinton backpage female escort Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 241, 272 (McHugh J), 302 (Gummow J); Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180, 195 (Gleeson CJ), 199-200 (Gaudron J), 219-23, 233-5 (McHugh J), 289 (Kirby J), 303-5 (Hayne J), 324, 326 (Callinan J); Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552, 563-4 (Gleeson CJ); Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562, 582 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne and Callinan JJ); Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 205 ALR 522, 528-9 (Gleeson C J, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ), 534-5, 543 (McHugh J), 562, 565, 566 (Kirby J). The validity of the floodgates argument has generally been treated with great scepticism: see Australian Conservation Foundation IncvCommonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, 557-8 (Murphy J); Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pry Ltd (1999) 167 ALR 575, 614 (Kirby J); Bowen v Paramount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd 1 NZLR 394, 422 (Cooke J); Van Soest v Residual Health Management Unit 1 NZLR 179, 202-4 (Thomas J); Spartan Steel Alloys Ltd v Martin Co (Contractors) Ltd QB 27, 38 (Lord Denning MR); McLoughlin v O’Brian 1 AC 410, 425 (Lord Edmund-Davies), 441-2 (Lord Bridge); Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317, 399-400 (Hayne J); Hancock v Nominal Defendant 1 Qd R 578, 603 (Davies JA). The floodgates argument is sometimes employed by the courts to deny relief where a ‘flood’ of litigants is apprehended if relief were granted: see, eg, Chester v Council of the Municipality of Waverley (1939) 62 CLR 1, 7-8 (Latham CJ), 11 (Rich J); Van Soest v Residual Health Management Unit 1 NZLR 179, 198-9 (Gault, Henry, Keith and Blanchard JJ); Page v Smith 1 AC 155, 197 (Lord Lloyd); White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police 2 AC 455, 493-4 (Lord Steyn), 503 (Lord Hoffmann); Law Commission for England and Wales, Liability for Psychiatric Illness, Report No 249 (1998) [6.6] fn 9 < It plays on the fear that if the net of liability is cast too widely, the courts will be overwhelmed by a proliferation of claims and become congested, thereby diminishing their ability to dispense justice.

Anda mungkin juga suka...