|Roads and Maritime Services v Grant (NSWCA) - negligence - Authority not liable for motorcyclist’s injuries in collision with pedestrian barrier - appeal allowed
|TB v State of New South Wales and Quinn; DC v State of New South Wales and Quinn (NSWSC) - negligence - victims of sexual abuse - breach of duty by Department was not necessary condition of harm
|Barrow v Bolt (VSCA) - defamation - claim arising from email correspondence forwarded to Australian Press Council dismissed - leave to appeal refused
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Roads and Maritime Services v Grant  NSWCA 138
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
McColl, Basten & Emmett JJA
Negligence - respondent motorcyclist injured when motorcycle collided with pedestrian barrier erected on median strip in centre of intersection - primary judge found Authority breached duty and that its breach caused respondent’s injuries - primary judge also found it would be just and equitable to reduce damages by 30% for contributory negligence - Authority appealed - held: Authority not liable for alleged breach because statutory immunity in s43A Civil Liability Act 2002 engaged - respondent did not establish mechanism of accident was as he contended - appeal allowed.
|TB v State of New South Wales and Quinn; DC v State of New South Wales and Quinn  NSWSC 575
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Negligence - plaintiffs were victims of sexual abuse by stepfather - plaintiffs claimed damages from State and officer for personal injury and mental harm caused by continuation of sexual and physical abuse by stepfather after Department notified of their ill-treatment - held: Department owed plaintiffs duty actionable under law of negligence to use reasonable care in exercise of its powers conferred by s148B Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW) - officer owed no duty in exercise of powers under s148B as powers not conferred on her - Department breached its duty of care by omitting to notify New South Wales Police Child Mistreatment Unit of serious physical and sexual abuse suffered by plaintiffs - Department’s breach was not necessary condition of harm suffered by plaintiffs - judgment for defendants.
|Barrow v Bolt  VSCA 107
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Ashley, Kaye & McLeish JJA
Defamation - applicant made complaint concerning first respondent to Australian Press Council - respondents invited to respond - claim arising from email from first respondent to second respondent which was forwarded to Australian Press Council - trial judge dismissed applicant’s claim - applicant sought leave to appeal - s33 Defamation Act 2005 - triviality defence - malice - applicant sought leave to appeal - held: leave to appeal refused in respect of trial judge’s conclusions on issue of malice, and conclusion t applicant failed to establish first defendant knew of falsity of certain statement - trial judge correct to conclude respondents had established circumstances of publication were such that applicant unlikely to suffer harm to reputation as result of publications - leave to appeal refused.