From: Prue
Vines <p.vines@unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Tuesday
10 September 2024 01:21
To: Tim
Paine; Jason W Neyers; Brandon D. Stewart; obligations
Subject: Re:
Australian negligence law - unique
Sorry Brandon I didn't see the earlier email
with the cutoff date. I think Gummow J'S and Hayne J's emphasis on the
detail of the scope of the duty of care is very significant and continues to
sometimes make delineation of duty v breach tricky.
Prue
Prue Vines
Professor, Co-Director
Private Law Research & Policy Group, FAAL, FSEA
School
of Private & Commercial Law, UNSW Law & Justice
Room 216, Level 2, Law Building
UNSW SYDNEY 2052
From: Tim Paine <Timothy.Paine@uts.edu.au>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 9:56:24 AM
To: Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>;
Brandon D. Stewart <brandon.stewart@uts.edu.au>;
obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: Australian negligence law - unique
Also (but before 2010) for construction defects (economic loss)
there is a useful comparison of Australia and Canada (also US and UK) in Bryan
v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609 - Brennan J's dissent is interesting - decided
under proximity, and subsequently in Woolcock Street Investments (2004) 216 CLR
515 - decided under salient features with numerous references to Bryan.
From: Jason W Neyers
<jneyers@uwo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, 10 September 2024 9:17 AM
To: Brandon D. Stewart <brandon.stewart@uts.edu.au>;
obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Australian negligence law - unique
How about the differences between negligently
supplied building structures: ie Winnipeg Condo and Brookfield
Multiplex and the differences in the recovery of relational economic loss
which differs in the 3 jurisdictions at a certain level of generality.
Jason Neyers
Professor
of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
Law Building Rm 26
e. jneyers@uwo.ca
t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)
From: Brandon D. Stewart <Brandon.Stewart@uts.edu.au>
Sent: September 9, 2024 6:41 PM
To: obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Australian negligence law - unique
|
Some
people who received this message don't often get email from brandon.stewart@uts.edu.au. Learn why this is important |
Dear all,
I m conducting a study of HCA negligence
decisions since 2010. As part of the study, I m compiling a list of aspects of
Australian negligence law that are unique relative to Canada and the UK (and
sometimes other common law/civil jurisdictions) during my study period. I m
focusing on the common law, not the state civil liability legislation. So far I
have advocate s immunity and (arguably) the salient features approach to novel
duties (but not really its content).
Is anyone aware of any other examples (even
prior to 2010)?
Many thanks!
Dr. Brandon D. Stewart, J.D., LL.M., J.S.D.
Lecturer
Faculty of Law
University of Technology Sydney
PO Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007 Australia
uts.edu.au
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
|
|
|
|
|
You're receiving this message because you're a member of the
obligations group from The University of Western Ontario. To take part in
this conversation, reply all to this message. |
|
|
|
|