Talk:Tort law in Australia

Problems
This article has serious issues. Many of the claims made in the article are incorrect, uncited, irrelevant, and inaccurate. Substantial work needs to be done to re-organise this article and raise it to a quality that would be useful to a person interested in Australian Tort Law.

I've summarized the opening sections of the article. I will begin refactoring out a large amount of the content of this article into separate pages as well. (For example, the list of torts; which is unnecessary for this page, and furthermore contains numerous errors.) Jack4576 (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

2005 discussion
Quote: The onus of proof for trespass on the highway is on the plaintiff at all times.

Shoul the "on the highway" be there?

Answer: yes, because trespass in Australia is divided into Highway and non-highway trespass.

I've been thinking about this one for a while - should this article even be here? For the Austrlian contract law material that I've added, I've just added it to the main contracts articles... for torts, I can't imagine that Australian torts is that divergent from english torts... Enochlau 12:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comment -- Australian tort law is different in key respects to English tort law

Well, it would be rather naive to be unable to imagine that two different countries such as Australia (established by federalism and a written constitution) and the United Kingdom would have tort laws that are not "that" divergant from each other. Australian torts could not be anything like English torts, if anything the High Court follows US doctrine in developing tort actions, but most of which has yet to be determined leaving scholars in text books to speculate either way without ever having a real case to prove them right or wrong in an obscure area. Australian tort law is unique to both UK and US models of torts - cmon it is a separate country here! --Never29 12:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I retract my previous statement, but I'm still worried about duplication. I think to make reading Wikipedia easier, general torts principles, or things that are pretty much common to most jurisdictions, should go onto the main tort page, and only principles or quirks of Australian law should go here. And also, I think the title is incorrect - the jurisdiction should be in brackets, namely Tort (Australia). Enochlau 22:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am still a bit worried about duplication myself. Perhaps a section in the Main Torts law page or some infobox could be created with links to specific jurisdictions outlining how the law of torts works. With a category so broad it can be difficult to get things right.! --Never29 09:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the best method is to have an outline of Australian xxx law, with links under each heading to the general article; e.g. Australian tort law... Neglience/ Main article negligence. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumple (talk • contribs).


 * Currently, the general feel that I get is that you try and put all the laws applicable to common law countries onto the same page, e.g. contract, but with clear indications of jurisdiction, due to the substantial overlap. Articles like this are for in depth treatment of arcane, exceptionally unique bits only found in Australian law. So anything that's common to all should go onto the main subject article. enochlau (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Statutory "no fault" schemes
It would be useful to discuss the no fault schemes eg third party motor vehicle insurance. Sambo 09:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Uniform defamation law
SCAG was going to implement uniform defamation laws, and Queensland implemented, but I don't know about any other states/territories. This should also be noted. Sambo 09:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Has pretty much been done - Tasmania brought it in last year, and ABC Radio National's Media Report was saying it was nationwide. Main change seems to be abolition of Public Interest/Benefit requirements and damages caps - MojoTas 07:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Civil liability reform
The discussion is pretty elementary. We should add links to the acts, and a more substantial discussion of the reforms. Also, I think it's patently incorrect to say, as the introduction asserts, that the various Civil Liability Acts codify the common law - the common law meanings and doctrines remain extant. Sambo 09:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Needs citation
The preliminary discussion including consideration of international case law needs to be referenced - in what case did the High Court decide that? Sambo 09:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, although if I were to hazard a guess, I would say look at some of Kirby J's judgments. enochlau (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't have been Kirby J, because he's in favour of eg interpreting the Constitution by specifically taking account of international jurisprudential developments. I'd just like to know (and its appropriate to cite) the source, if there is one. Sambo 10:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Solved! Sambo 12:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Separate Laws
Any body wanting to open pages for Tort Law for each state. E.g. WA Tort Law, NSW Tort Law etc...We have significantly different statutory provisions and are different jurisdictions. WASC isn't binded by the decisions of the NSWSC. Any one up for this? Tarins01 11:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have enough material (and enough editors) to make this viable. I would suggest continuing to add material to this article and we split stuff off as necessary when it becomes too long. enochlau (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * would you want to start with introducing headings as a starter? Tarins01 12:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by introducing headings? Where? enochlau (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't any substantive difference between the common law in each state anyway, because of the effect that High Court decisions have on the common law. As to the recent statutory reforms - yes, there are subtle differences in each state's legislation, but their effect is substantially the same.  To the extent that the reforms affect the common law in that state (and, because the CLAs aren't a codification of the law, I can't see any dramatic shifts coming), they are similar enough that if judicially considered the reasoning of one state's court will be persuasive (and likely followed) in another.  At best, I think the differences are too subtle to be of any use except to a minute group.  Sambo 16:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Privacy
Hey all - new user, novice on wiki, made some changes to Invasion of Privacy, still needs a heavy clean up. Bit worried about some of NPOV: are there any sources for the stuff about strong companies and weak plaintiff's (yeah, we all know its true, but need something to back it up.) - MojoTas 07:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tort reform section
This is the most biased section I have ever seen. It only presents one side of the issue, is continuously condescending (like putting "reform" in quotes -- whoever wrote it does not even hide their disdain for the reform). It does not even mention the obvious conflict of interest lawyers unions (the main criticisers of the reform) have to increasing liability and increasing court action.

I recommend the section be entirely removed and re-done.