[Torts] Torts cases in Australia (memorising list and table)


BATTERY
Innes v Wylie                                      [positive]
Battiato v Lagana                                [definition; direct, intentional, unwanted]
Reynolds v Clarke                                [positive act per Fortescue CJ]
Scott v Shepherd                                  [chain of directness; transferred intent]
Gray v Barr                                          [intentional act]
Law v Visser                                         [knowledge of the contact not required]
Wilson v Pringle                                  [hostility]
Marion’s case                                       [onus on P to prove consent]
Collins v Wilcock                                [everyday incidental touch (Lord Goff)]
Malette v Shulman                               [defence of necessity; lack of consent]
McHale v Watson                                [defence of infancy; inevitable accident]
Hall v Fonceca                                     [defence of mistake]
McClelland v Symons                           [self-defence]
Fontin v Katapodis                              [self-defence; excessive; provocation]
White v Connolly                                [provocation; s 268 of Criminal Code 1899]
Sections 268-9 of Criminal Code          [provocation as defence to criminal assault;]
ASSAULT
Stephens v Myers                                 [positive and direct act]
Zanker v Vartzokas                              [imminent contact]
Brady v Schatzel                                  [reasonably apprehensible]
McClellend v Symons                           [intention to cause fear even if gun unloaded]
Hall v Fonceca                                     [intention to harm irrelevant]
Tuberville v Savage                              [conditional threat]
Police v Greaves                                  [conditional threat; lawful duty]
Barton v Armstrong                             [telephone threat]
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Herd v Weardale Steel                                      [positive act]
Myer Stores v Soo                                [total restraint of liberty]
Symes v Mahon                                   [total restraint; authority]
Bird v Jones                                         [partial restraint]
Burton v Davies                                   [reasonable escape]
Murray v Ministry of Defence                         [absence of knowledge]
TRESPASS TO LAND
Delany v T P Smith                             [lawful possession]
Newington v Windeyer                        [better title to sue]
Public Transport v Perry                     [involuntary; inevitable accident]
Southport Co v Esso Petroleum           [intentional]
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco                  [exclusive possession; airspace]
Davies v Bennison                               [airspace; no injunction for non-repeating]
Halliday v Nevill                                  [consent; authority]
Plenty v Dillon                                                [revoked license to enter]
Cope v Sharpe                                      [necessity to trespass]
Graham v KD Morris                           [transient intrusion; airspace]
Bernstein v Skyviews                           [transient intrusion; airspace]
Cowell v Rosehill                                 [reasonable time to leave property; reasonable force to eject]
Jones v Williams                                  [abatement of self-help; ss 267 and 274 of CC 1899]
Konskier v Goodman                           [trespass until object removed]
Section 180 of Property Law Act 74   [3(a) public interest, (b) recompensed (c) unreasonable]
PRIVATE NUISANCE
Hunter v Canary Wharf                                   [title to sue]
Goldman v Hargrave                            [title to be sued]
Peden v Bortolazzo                              [landlord liable if authorized and certain to occur]
St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping                          [unreasonableness; locality]
Walter v Selfe                                                  [triviality]                              
Munro v Southern Dairies                    [non-triviality]
Hunter v Canary Wharf                                   [indirect interference]
Kennaway v Thompson                       [give and take]
Clary v Women’s college                    [give and take]
Christie v Davies                                  [motive; malice]
Robinson v Kilbert                               [hypersensitivity]                                                  
Campbelltown Golf Club v Winton       [coming to nuisance]
Halsey v Esso Petroleum                      [consideration of alterative activities]
TORTS AGAINST CHATTELS
Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott                     [title to sue; actual possession; wrongful use of goods]
There was no trespass to goods when the defendant filled the plaintiff’s bottles with bulk wines produced by another because the bottles had been given to the defendant by the plaintiffs’ bailee. As the act of the defendant was not wrongful as against the bailee, there was no trespassory interference with possession which would allow the plaintiff, the bailor, to sue for trespass to the bottles.
Armory v Delamirie                             [title to sue]
Parker v British Airways Board                        [title to sue in an area owned]
Hutchins v Maughan                            [direct interference]
Oakley v Lyster                                   [conversion; repugnant dealing]
Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott                     [conversion; tangible goods]
Hollin’s case                                        [conversion; wrongful destruction]
Wade Sawmill Pty Ltd v Colenden       [detinue; wrong deliver]
Goulding v Victorian Railways             [detinue; detention of good; refusal to demand]
Jackson v Harrison                               [Ex turpi causa; defence; plaintiff involved]
 NEGLIGENCE
Donoghue v Stevenson                                     [duty of care; neighbor rule; proximity]
Drinkwater v Howarth                         [no duty owed if unforeseeable]
Glasgow v Muir                                    [objective test; breach of duty; s9 of CLA]
Thompson v Woolworths                    [occupier’s duty; established category]
Neindorf v Junkovic                             [occupier’s liability; standard of care]
Imbree v McNeilly                               [driver’s duty; standard of care;]
Manley v Alexander                             [driver’s liability; standard of care;]
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University     [employer’s duty]
Insurance Commissioner v Joyce          [intoxicated driver’s liability; knowledge of; no breach of duty]
Jones v Manchester Corporation                      [professional duty of care; standard of care; s22]
Carrier v Bonham                                [no change in standard of care]
McHale v Watson                                [less standard of care; child’s foreseeability]
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt                [not far-fetched, fanciful test (s9(1)b CLA); Shirt factors]
Chapman v Hearse                               [precise sequence; class of persons; s9(1)(a), s11(1)(b)]
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad                        [unforeseeable plaintiff]
Bolton v Stone                                     [degree of probability; foreseeability; s9(2)(a)]
Goode v Nash                                       [degree of probability irrelevant; huge risk; s9(2)(b)]
Paris v Stepney Borough Council         [seriousness; higher standard of care; s9(2)(b)]
Romeo v Commission Conservation    [burden of taking precautions; s9(2)(c)]
Caledonian Collieries v Spiers               [burden of taking precautions; s9(2)(c)]
Watt v Herfordshire County Council    [social utility; s9(2)(d)]
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensingston      [“but for test”]
McKiernan v Manhire                          [aggravation of damages; defendant not liable; too remote]
Pyne v Wilkenfeld                               [aggravation of damages; 1st defendant liable]
Hunt v Prontonotarios                         [aggravation of earlier tortious injury; contribution]
SGIC v Oakley                                                 [aggravation of damages; contribution]
March v Stramare                                [novus actus interveniens; common sense and experience approach]
McKew v Holland                                [novus actus interveniens; only if person unreasonably acts]
Wagon Mound No 1                             [remoteness; unforeseeable risk; s11(1)(b); class of damages]
Hughes v Lord Advocate                      [classification of damages foreseeable; s11(1)(b)]
Smith v Leech Brain                            [remoteness; eggshell skull rule]
Thompson v ACT                               [join tortfeasors; solidary, proportionate liability; ss 6-7 of LRA]
Chapman v Hearse                               [several concurrent tortfeasors; ss 6-7 of LRA]
Akers v P                                             [P must not be under any duress, coercion or dilemma]
Nilon v Bezzina                                               [multiple sufficient causes]
Strong v Woolworths                           [factual causation; remoteness]
Smith v Jenkins                                                [defence of illegality; joint illegal enterprise; irrelevant]
Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings                        [res ipsa loquitur; no allegations]
Fallas v Mourlas                                   [obvious risk; dangerous recreational; s19.1]

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2003 (QLD)
Section 7(1)                                         [does not create duties]                                   
Section 9(1)(a)                                     [reasonable foreseeability]                                           
Section 9(1)(b)                                     [not significant risk; Wyong Shire]
Section 9(1)(c)                                     [reasonable person in the position; three Shirt factors; calculus ]
Section 9(2)(a)                                     [probability; Bolton v Stone]
Section 9(2)(b)                                     [seriousness; Paris v Stepney BC]
Section 9(2)(c)                                     [burden of taking precautions; Caledonian Collieries v Speirs]
Section 9(2)(d)                                     [social utility; Watt v Hertfordshire CC]
Section 11(1)(a)                                   [factual causation; but for test; Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington]
Section 11(1)(b)                                   [scope of liability; Wagon Mound No 1]
Section 11(2)                                       [multiple causes; novus actus interveniens; March v Stramare]
Section 11(4)                                       [remoteness; scope of liability; Smith v Leech Brain]
Section 12                                            [onus on plaintiff to prove causation on b. of probabilities]
Section 13                                            [volenti; meaning of obvious risks]
Sections 13(3,5)                                   [volenti; probability no effect on obviousness]
Section 14(1)                                       [volenti; presumption of obvious risks; rebuttable]
Section 14(2)                                       [volenti; type of kind of risk involved; Chapman v Hearse]
Section 15(1)                                       [volenti; no liability to warn of obvious risks; Fallas v Mourlas]
Section 16(1)                                       [volenti; inherent risk; no liability]
Section 18(2)                                       [volenti; definition of dangerous recreational activity]
Section 19(1)                                       [volenti; no liability to obvious risk in DRA; Fallas v Mourlas]
Section 22(1)                                       [professional standard of care; Goode v Nash]
Section 23                                            [contributory negligence; objective test; reasonable person test]         
Section 24                                            [defeat claim by 100% at court’s discretion]
Section 45(1)(a)                                               [no damages in illegal activity; Smith v Jenkins]
Section 45(1)(b)                                   [P contributed to produce harm in illegal activity; Smith v Jenkins]
Section 47                                            [presumption of contributory negligence; intoxication]
Section 47(3)                                       [rebuttable presumption on balance of probabilities]    
Section 48                                            [reliance on care and skill of intoxicated defendant]
Section 48(2)                                       [presumption]
Section 48(3)                                       [rebuttable presumption]
Section 48(5)                                       [common law volenti does not apply when P relies on intoxicated D]
Section 49                                            [contributory negligence; car accidents]
Section 49(2)(d)                                   [contributory negligence; car accidents; reduction 50%]
Section 51                                            [assessment of damages for personal injuries]

OTHER LEGISLATIONS
Criminal Code 1899 s245                     [definition of assault]
Criminal Code 1899 s268-9                 [provocation; reasonable requirement; White v Connolly]
Law Reform Act 1995 s6(c)                 [several tortfeasors; apportionment of damages]
Law Reform Act s7                              [assessment of contribution]
Law Reform Act s10(1)(b)                   [P’s contributory negligence; reduction in damages]
Limitations of Action Act s11(1)        [three years limit]
Limitations of Action Act ss29-33      [extension of periods of limitation]

Comments

  1. Very important information. Thanks a lot.Thanks for this important information. We are able to assist most of our clients to reach an agreement about parenting arrangements for their child/ren. Any agreement can be formalised by court Consent Orders, which then have legal force. Alternatively, parents can keep their arrangements informal. Child Custody Lawyers Sydney

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your law notes are standard as reference for students like me. I am thankful to you for all that you write. Keep updating.Sydney Probate Lawyers is a boutique law firm based in the heart of Sydney’s CBD, specialising in Probate Law. We pride ourselves on being a client-focused firm, addressing each of our client’s individual needs on a case-to-case basis. Our expert lawyers give their personal attention to every matter and ensure our clients can directly deal with their lawyer (not just administrative staff).
    Probate Law NSW

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

[Contract] Red Hand Rule and Incorporation of Terms- Terms