Category: Common Law
-
In the matter of R v Lovell; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 136, the Court of Appeal considered whether a disfigurement subsequently medically repaired is capable of amounting to ‘serious disfigurement’ under the definition of grievous bodily harm.
-
In Burton v Davies [1953] QSR 26, the defendant’s actions of driving at high speed preventing the plaintiff from leaving the vehicle, constituted false imprisonment—as the plaintiff had no reasonable means of escape.
-
In Queensland v Masson [2020] HCA 28, the High Court considered whether the State was liable in negligence for its paramedic’s omission to promptly administer Adrenaline to Masson, who sustained severe brain damage after an asthma attack.
-
In R v Willmot (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 41, the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the jury were misdirected on the element of intent in a murder conviction under s 302(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
-
The tort of private nuisance is defined by the High Court in Hargrave v Goldman, per Windeyer J at 60, as ‘an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over, or in connexion, with it.’
-
In CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman [2023] HCA 21, the High Court unanimously held that the employer was not vicariously liable for its employee’s drunken behaviour as it was not within the “course or scope of employment”.
-
In Wilson v Ferguson [2015] WASC 15, the Supreme Court of Western Australia held that the defendant breached his obligation of confidence by posting sexually explicit images of the plaintiff on Facebook. The plaintiff was awarded equitable compensation for emotional distress and economic loss.
-
In this failure to warn case, Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375, the High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal holding that Dr Kam was not liable for Wallace’s neurapraxia, as Wallace would have proceeded with surgery regardless of being warned about the specific risk.
-
In Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621, the High Court upheld the trial judge’s decision that Louth’s actions constituted unconscionable conduct. Louth manipulated Diprose’s “emotional dependency” on her, to acquire property benefiting herself.
-
In Amaca Pty Ltd v Ellis [2010] HCA 5, the High Court determined that asbestos exposure was not a probable cause of a long-term smoker’s lung cancer—it was incorrect of the trial judge to assess causation by reference to the cumulative asbestos exposure over successive employment periods.
