From:                                                       David Tan <david.tan@nus.edu.sg>

Sent:                                                         Tuesday 10 September 2024 03:14

To:                                                            Brandon D. Stewart; obligations

Subject:                                                   Re: Australian negligence law - unique

 

Hi Brandon,

 

If you're interested to have a look at Singapore's approach to duty of care, essentially separating the "salient features" of the Australian approach into "factual" factors  and "policy" factors in a two-stage analysis, check out - Tan & Goh, ‘The Promise of Universality: The Spandeck Formulation Half A Decade On’ (2013) 25 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 510; Tan (2019) 135 LQR 200.

 

The Singapore Court of Appeal has adhered to this approach since 2007, and also recognising pure economic loss to be recoverable.

 

Best regards,

David

 

 

Professor David Tan :: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tan :: Co-Director, Centre for Technology, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & the Law :: Head (Intellectual Property), EW Barker Centre for Law & Business :: Eu Tong Sen Building, 469G Bukit Timah Road, Singapore 259776, SINGAPORE :: +65 6516 6781 (DID) :: david.tan@nus.edu.sg (E) :: http://law.nus.edu.sg (W) :: Company Registration No: 200604346E

From: Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 9:36 AM
To: Prue Vines <p.vines@unsw.edu.au>; Tim Paine <Timothy.Paine@uts.edu.au>; Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>; Brandon D. Stewart <brandon.stewart@uts.edu.au>; obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: Australian negligence law - unique

 

 

- External Email -

 

Dear Brandon and colleagues;

One other difference between UK and Australian common law is in the way that the area of non-delegable duty has developed. I have a piece on this from a few years ago with more details: https://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/97/ . The UK took some time to recognise an NDD applying for pupils in schools- see Woodland v Essex CC [2013] UKSC 66, [2014] 1 AC 537, which had been recognised by the HCA in Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258 for a long while.

There is now also a difference in this area between the UK and Australia on whether an NDD applies to roads authorities conducting work on public roads, as to which the HCA has said (contrary to UK authority) that there is no NDD applicable: see Leichhardt Muncipal Council v Montgomery (2007) 230 CLR 22.

Also (though this is outside the negligence area) these days the UKSC has recognised possible NDD liability for intentional torts, in Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60 at [51], whereas at the moment the HCA decision in NSW v Lepore (2003) 212 CLR 511 says this is not possible here. (The question will I think be reconsidered in the appeal decision from Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) [2023] VSCA 66, (2023) 69 VR 408, on which the HCA is currently reserved. I have a piece on this here: https://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/147/ )

Regards

Neil

 

 

 

NEIL FOSTER

Associate Professor, School of Law and Justice

College of Human and Social Futures,

University of Newcastle, NSW

 

T: +61 2 49217430

E: neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au

 

Further details: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/neil-foster

My publications: http://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/ , http://ssrn.com/author=504828 

Blog: https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog

 

 

The University of Newcastle
Hunter St & Auckland St, Newcastle NSW 2300

The University of Newcastle

Top 200 University in the world by QS World University Rankings 2021

I acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land in which the University resides and pay my respect to Elders past, present and emerging. 
I extend this acknowledgement to the Worimi and Awabakal people of the land in which the Newcastle City campus resides and which I work.

CRICOS Provider 00109J

 

 

From: Prue Vines <p.vines@unsw.edu.au>
Date: Tuesday, 10 September 2024 at 10:21 AM
To: Tim Paine <Timothy.Paine@uts.edu.au>, Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>, Brandon D. Stewart <brandon.stewart@uts.edu.au>, obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
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.

 

esig-law

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.

 

 

 

 


Important: This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately; you should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you.