CASES ON TORTS

Preface to the Sixth Edition

As in previous editions, the editors’ aim is to provide students of tort law with

a collection of cases illuminating the key principles of Australian tort law. The

collection includes a number of non-Australian cases of historical or continuing

doctrinal importance in the development of modern Australian law or which, in

the editors’ view, are likely to represent or influence Australian law on an issue

where there is no Australian case in point.

It is also the editors' aim to allow the cases to speak for themselves in order to

provide students with experience in reading and comprehending primary sources

of law so that they learn to identify and evaluate the current law from a primary,

rather than a secondary, source. This also gives university lecturers flexibility in

the design of individual torts courses around a core of significant cases. New to

this edition, each case is preceded by a short note and one or more questions to

guide the student’s reading of the case.

This edition has been thoroughly revised to include significant new case law.

Some new cases deal with the impact on the common law of the civil liability legislation

enacted in each State and Territory and by the Commonwealth Parliament

in response to recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Review of the

Lαw of Negligence. This report was submitted to the Commonwealth Government

in September 2002 by a panel chaired by Justice David lpp. In varying degrees

this legislation seeks to modify or abrogate aspects of the common law of negligence

particularly (but by no means exclusively) in cases of personal injury. The

legislation also affects some contractual and statutory claims. It operates against

the background of the common law so that an understanding of the common law,

especially its principled exposition by the High Court of Australia, continues to

be essential for the interpretation of this legislation, and in the education of law

students who may practise in other common law jurisdictions.

Overall, the editors think it is fair to say that the civil liability legislation has

made tort law more complex. Regrettably, and contrary to the recommendation of

the lpp panel, the civil liability legislation is not uniform throughout Australia,

limiting the national relevance of case law on particular provisions. An example

is the decision in Wicks v State Rαil Authority of New South Wales; Sheehan

v State Rαil Authority of New South Wales (2010) 241 CLR 60 where, in the

context of a claim for damages for psychiatric injury suffered by police officers who

attended the scene of a rail accident, the High Court of Australia was called upon

to construe particular provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSV\巧. However,

while some other Australian jurisdictions have identical provisions, others have

a modified version of the New South Wales legislation or no equivalent provisions

on claims for mental harm at all.

As with previous editions, this edition will have the benefit of the publisher's

website, where edited versions of new cases within the scope of the book may

be accessed under “Book Supplements” . The publisher’s website address

is: <www.federationpress.com.au>.

v

Barbara McDonald

Ross Anderson

David Rolph

June 2017