Tag: 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).
-
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 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 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 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.
