There's also another source of uncertainty here. Presumably the intent is that the Act should deal with breach of duty rather than the existence of a duty of care. But the wording of s.1 ("This Act applies when a court, in considering a claim that a person was negligent or in breach of statutory duty, is determining the steps that the person was required to take to meet a standard of care") isn't entirely clear on the point. I wonder whether the Act might, ironically, find itself being invoked by administrative departments -- who, however surprisingly this may be, are persons -- who are sued for screwing things up and causing economic loss and then wish to deny any duty of care at all.

Statutory duty: perhaps put in ex abundante cautela to deal with the Occupiers' Liability Act?

On Robert's point about the NSW law, I must confess to thinking we might actually have been better off with the NSW version giving complete immunity in certain cases. At least this gives us certainty. Furthermore, with house prices the way they are it has to be remembered that individuals are today increasingly worth suing. With the demise of legal aid there's something unattractive about a flesh-and-blood person being sued for negligence, even if he has been well-meaningly foolish, possibly facing ruin and the loss of his home, and having to face the legal merry-go-round alone.

Andrew

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015