Category: Queensland
-
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 Stuart v The Queen (1974) 134 CLR 426, the High Court considered constructive murder (also known as felony murder), clarifying that conviction requires proof of an unlawful act endangering life, not intent to kill, leading to the refusal of Stuart’s application.
-
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 Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209, the High Court upheld the Queensland Criminal Court of Appeal’s decision that the provocation defence under s 269 did not apply to s 320 (grievous bodily harm) of the Criminal Code (Qld).
-
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 Hegarty v Queensland Ambulance Service [2007] QCA 366, a paramedic developed psychiatric injuries after exposure to numerous traumatic events at work. The Court of Appeal allowed the State’s appeal, dismissing the employee’s actions, concluding it was difficult for supervisors to recognise his psychological distress despite training.
-
In Amstad v Brisbane City Council (No 1) [1968] Qd R 344, a council employee entered the premises of the plaintiff, contrary to the council ordinances. It was held that entry upon the land could not be justified by any implied license.
