Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:39:40 +1200

From: Geoff McLay

Subject: Privacy tort in New Zealand

Readers of the list might be interested in the New Zealand Court of Appeal's apparent recognition of a tort of privacy (although not on the facts of the case where two children of a TV presenter were snapped by a photographer in a shopping mall).

There is mush spirited debate between the majority who appear to simply accept that NZ common law is affected by international human right conventions (with little discussion of the obvious conceptual difficulties) and Sir Kenneth Keith who thought the developments an unnecessary infringement in free speech and traditional common law balances.

The decision can be found at

Hosking & Hosking v Simon Runting & Anor [2004] NZCA 34 (25 March 2004) http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/ cases/NZCA/2004/34.html

Geoff

----- Original Message -----
From: Harold Luntz
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:58 PM
Subject: ODG: High Court of Australia on economic loss

The High Court of Australia today decided Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 16 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/ cases/cth/high_ct/2004/16.html>. By a majority of 6:1 it held that a subsequent purchaser of a commercial building was owed no duty of care by the engineer who designed the foundations of the building allegedly defectively. The joint judgment of four members of the majority carefully confined the decision to the pleaded facts and the few inferences that could be drawn therefrom. It was able to decide the present case "without determining whether doubt should now be cast upon the result at which the Court arrived in" Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609. It also found it unnecessary to consider the overseas authorities. The other three judgments, particularly the dissenting one of Kirby J, range more widely.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>