The following Subtitles were updated in June 2016 and are now available on Westlaw AU:

Environment and Natural Resources 14.4 “Development Control” (Ch 3 – NSW)

Updated by Joseph C Veneziano, Solicitor, Supreme Court of New South Wales and High Court of Australia

Updated Ch 3 of this Subtitle provides a comprehensive overview of the law relating to development control in New South Wales. The different classifications of development are considered, with substantial new sections dealing with State Significant Development and State Significant Infrastructure. There is examination of: the rules governing development applications; the role of consent authorities; the various requirements for public notice, public participation, Environmental Impact Statements and consultation with Aboriginal people; appeal rights; and much more.

Key Legislation: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW); Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW)

Torts 33.1 “Tort and Contract”

Updated by Clare McKay, Solicitor, Supreme Court of Victoria

The law of contract serves a different purpose to the law of torts, despite their closely aligned historical roots. The law of contract protects the interests of a party in having its contractual expectations met (as was stated in Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v Owners Corp Strata Plan 61288 [2014] HCA 36). A tort, on the other hand, is defined as “an injury other than a breach of contract, which the law will redress with damages”.

Key Case: Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v Owners Corp Strata Plan 61288 [2014] HCA 36

Torts 33.3 “Occupiers’ Liability”

Updated by Michael Denahy, Solicitor, Supreme Court of New South Wales

This Subtitle looks at the liability of occupiers to compensate persons injured on their premises because of dangerous conditions on those premises. Where previously the liability would depend on the category of entrant (invitees, licensees or trespassers) now an approach based on the nature of the relationship between occupier and entrant is used to determine what duty the occupier ought to be reasonably held to. The obligations of occupiers also extends to systems, processes or activities carried out on the premises, where persons entering the premises are required to conform to those processes.

Key Case: South Sydney Junior Rugby League Club Ltd v Gazis [2016] NSWCA 8

Torts 33.4 “Product Liability”

Updated by Michael Denahy, Solicitor, Supreme Court of New South Wales

Various actions under Pt 3-5 of the Australian Consumer Law may be brought in the Federal Court of Australia or Federal Circuit Court. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2015 (Cth) proposed to repeal the sections disallowing such actions to be originated in, or transferred to, State and Territory courts. However, the Bill was prorogued in May 2016 and whether it will be introduced under the post-2016 election parliament is uncertain. The Bill also proposed that notice would not be required under s 131(2) of the Australian Consumer Law when goods were food but not food packaging.

Key Legislation: Competition and Consumer Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2015 (Cth) (prorogued May 2016)

Torts 33.6 “Strict Liability”

Updated by Clare McKay, Solicitor, Supreme Court of Victoria

This Subtitle covers the principles relating to “strict liability” where liability arises in the absence of fault, such as vicarious liability by employees and animals. In Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56, Lord Philips observed that the “close connection” test as approved by the House of Lords in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 “tells one nothing about the nature of the connection” between unlawful acts and duties of the employee, to determine if the acts held vicariously liable were within the scope of the employee’s duties.

Key Case: Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56

Torts 33.7 “Nuisance”

Updated by Jeremy Masters, Barrister, Victorian Bar

In this subtitle dealing with the torts of public and private nuisance, updated coverage includes consideration of Marsh v Baxter (2015) 49 WAR 1; [2015] WASCA 169 in relation to the assessment of whether an interference with the use and enjoyment of property rights may be unreasonable – in that case the complaint was that “swathes” of a genetically modified canola crop had been transferred to an organic farm.

Key Legislation: Local Government Act 2008 (NT)
Key Case: Marsh v Baxter (2015) 49 WAR 1; [2015] WASCA 169

Torts 33.9 “Defences”

Updated by Gautam Mukherji, Barrister, Victorian Bar

This update considers new legislation and potential new legislation in relation to defences for torts in various jurisdictions such as the Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT), the Guardianship of Adults Bill 2016 (NT), the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) (awaiting commencement), the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) and the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA). Recent cases are also mentioned.

Key Legislation: Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT); Guardianship of Adults Bill 2016 (NT); Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld); Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic); Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)

Torts 33.11 “Concurrent Torts”

Updated by Michael Denahy, Solicitor, Supreme Court of New South Wales

Under statutes in all jurisdictions (other than South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria), the right to contribution only exists when all persons liable to the plaintiff are also liable in tort. In each State and Territory, proportionate liability provisions exist, enabling liability to be apportioned between individuals according to their respective responsibilities. In Victoria, provisions don’t apply to personal injury claims or other claims excluded by the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic).

Key Case: Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 115

Transport 34.1 “Carriage”

Updated by John Livermore, Accredited Experienced Mediator and Graded Arbitrator, Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia

This update considers changes to the law of carriage, particularly in relation to the regulation of heavy vehicles and changes to regulate ride-sharing services. Changes in regards to shipping as a result of the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth) are addressed. Recent cases such as Daebo Shipping Co Ltd v The Ship Go Star (2012) 207 FCR 220; [2012] FCAFC 156  and Mitsui Lines (Thailand) Co Ltd v Jack Fair Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 558 are also discussed.

Key Legislation: Navigation Act 2012 (Cth)
Key Cases: Daebo Shipping Co Ltd v The Ship Go Star (2012) 207 FCR 220; [2012] FCAFC 156; Mitsui Osk Lines (Thailand) Co Ltd v Jack Fair Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 558

July 2016 currently scheduled updates (subject to change):

2 Administrative Law 2.1 "Administrative Law System"

2 Administrative Law 2.7 "Other Forms of Review and Appeal"

33 Torts 33.2 "Negligence"

33 Torts 33.8 "Trespass and Intentional Torts"