Term Paper on "Australia's Tort Law"

Home  >  Topics  >  Law My Account

Term Paper 7 pages (2554 words) Sources: 10

[EXCERPT] . . . .

The two lawsuits analyzed elements of Wright J's basic principle but don't aim to alter or expand it. Nevertheless, Maxwell P. In Giller v Procopets introduced a powerful discussion for reformulating Wilkinson v Downton as being a cause of action relating to intentional infliction and involves psychiatric harm (Handford, 2012).

This was a case wherein the accused secretly videoed himself and also his de facto companion experiencing sexual activities, and following the relationship breakdown demonstrated or tried to present the video to her family and friends. Maxwell P. recommended that not just the legislation but also psychiatry have developed greatly ever since 1897;117 DSM-IV, as an advocate of the existing information, demonstrated that there was no evidently outlined boundaries isolating "recognized psychiatric disorder" from various other types of mental dysfunctions, so this brought about the decision that the prerequisite to demonstrate bodily injury as a signifier of mental damage was anachronistic and also ought to be completely discarded. Rather, courts ought to concentrate over the psychiatric harm's nature and degree endured by the complainant (Handford, 2012).

This could eliminate the most difficult facet of Wilkinson v Downton, the demand to depend on an assigned intention to cause bodily damage, because it was apparent that Downton didn't have a genuine intention to cause harm, beyond, carrying out a practical joke; and so this might overcome one of the many issues, which had bothered the New South Wales (NSW) Court of Appeal in a case of Nationwide News v Naidu. Maxwell P. additionally referenced the improvement of the tort of intentional harm of psychiatric
Continue scrolling to

download full paper
distress within Australia starting from the 1930s; he recommended that this court case would most likely fit easily inside of the outrageous-and-extreme-conduct prerequisite related to the Restatement of Torts, although he stated that he didn't view the demand for such a restriction. No matter how appealing Maxwell P's opinion was, it must be mentioned that his views are in minority (Handford, 2012).

Ashley JA stated that this Victorian Court of Appeal had not been free to decide that anything significantly less than accepted mental injury was adequate. Neave JA reviewed the problem, and in contrast to Ashley JA, concurred with Maxwell P. decision that no Australian judgment favorably precluded the growth of the tort to protect circumstances of psychiatric stress instead of bodily or mental damage. Nevertheless, she determined that such extension might produce incongruencies, due to the restrictions on harms in negligence lawsuits enforced from the Civil Liability statutory, and that in cases where intentional infliction of psychiatric distress was identified as a tort, this seemed to be a job for the law making body (Handford, 2012).

Even though the Court of Appeal was hesitant to effectively figure out whether or not Australian law ought to identify a tort of intentional infliction of psychiatric harm in a case of Giller v Procopets, evidently demonstrates that this law within this area continues to be unsettled nationwide. There was an indication in this regard that the legal courts might favor leaving the creation of this tort law to the Australian Parliament. As Neave JA asserts, she didn't find it crucial for the Australian High Courts to determine whether or not there was a tort of intentional infliction of psychiatric distress. Additionally, she likewise recognized simultaneously the benefits and drawbacks of this tort and ultimately remained unconvinced that this common law ought to plug the space that Maxwell P. disputes. Certainly, she determined that it was an issue for the Australian Parliament to determine that regard. At the same time, Ashley JA as part of his ruling stated that it had not been amenable for the Court of Appeal to create this type of cause of action (Handford, 2012).

On balance, it was apparent that the vast majority of the appellate court opposed the establishment of tort of intentional infliction of mental harm. In my view, Neave's ruling over the position of the Australian Law making body was appropriate. The Australian Parliament ought to make room for increased protection of intentional infliction of psychiatric injury particularly.

Conclusion

Whilst the ruling in a case of Giller v Procopets appreciates the applicable extension of legal liability within Wilkinson v Downton, it ultimately does very little to put together the common law within the framework of intentional infliction of psychiatric harm, simply because all 3 judges have put forward distinctive rulings on the way the law within this area ought to established. Nevertheless, the appellate court's verdict has offered space for the part of Australian Parliament to succeed in the foreseeable future, when it comes to a tort of intentional infliction of psychiatric harm acknowledgement.

To conclude, however, it is noteworthy that the intentional infliction of psychiatric harm has demonstrated to be especially productive in both harassment and employment proceedings. The Australian courts are gradually moving towards a point wherein they provide redress to vulnerable victims who suffer mental distress because of the nature of their relationship with the accused. Redress is not limited to giving damages only; injunction is also used to ensure that the victim does not undergo nay more mental harm.

References

Aplin, Tanya, 'The Future of Breach of Confidence and the Protection of Privacy' (2007) 7 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 137.

Cane, Peter. And Trindade, Francis., and Lunney, Mark, The Law of Torts in Australia (Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand, 2012, 25-26).

Doyle, Carolyn, and Bagaric, Mirko, Privacy Law in Australia (The Federation Press, 2005, 68).

Handford, Peter, Wilkinson v Downton: Pathways to the future?' (2012) 20 Tort Law Review 145 at 146.

Harpwood, Vivienne, Modern Tort Law (Routledge-Cavendish, 2008, 313-314).

Murphy, John, and Witting, Christian, Street on Torts (Oxford University Press, 2012, 157-159).

Simmons, Kenneth, The Crime/Tort Distinction: Legal Doctrine And Normative Perspectives. (2007), 17 Widener Law Review 719.

Stewart, Pamela, and Stuhmcke, Anita, Australian Principles of Tort Law (Federation Press, 2009, 166-168).

Witzleb, Normann. Giller V Procopets: Australia's Privacy Protection Shows Signs of Improvement. (2009) 17 Torts Law Journal 121.

Witting, Christian, Tort Liability for intended mental harm, (1998) 21 UNSW Law Journal 1.

Cases used as references

Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd. (2002) 211 CLR 317

Bunyan v Jordan [1937] HCA 5; (1937) 57 CLR 1; (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 350

Carrier v Bonham (2001) QCA 234; (2002) 1 Qd R.… READ MORE

Quoted Instructions for "Australia's Tort Law" Assignment:

Torts Essay Question:

“Starting in 1990 or thereabouts, there were new developments. Far from being a dying cause of action, as some forecasts had envisaged, there was a re-awakening of interest in Wilkinson v Downton, as plaintiffs sought remedies for harassment, bullying and a variety of other forms of unpleasant conduct which lay outside the confines of trespass to the person, and the number of reported cases multiplied greatly.”

Peter Handford, ‘Wilkinson v Downton: Pathways to the future?’ (2012) 20 Tort Law Review 145 at 146.

Discuss whether the cause of action in Wilkinson v Downton offers a viable remedy to victims of intentionally inflicted psychiatric harm in Australia today. What limitations, if any, are inherent in the cause of action? Is there any doubt about the future of the cause of action in the High Court of Australia – explain why this is or is not the case?

In order to answer the question you are required to read, consider and where appropriate, refer to the following sources:

- Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57 http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000117910001.pdf - Carrier v Bonham [2002] 1 Qd R 474; [2001] QCA 234 (see Austlii) http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/234.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Carrier%20and%20Bonham%20) - Wainwright v Home Office [2004] 2 AC 406; [2003] UKHL 53 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/53.html - Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Naidu (2007) 71 NSWLR 471; [2007] NSWCA 377 (see Austlii) http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2007/377.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Nationwide%20News%20Pty%20Ltd%20and%20Naidu%20) - Giller v Procopets (2008) 24 VR 1 ; [2008] VSCA 236 (see Austlii) http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2008/236.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Giller%20and%20Procopets%20) - Peter Handford, ‘Wilkinson v Downton: Pathways to the future?’ (2012) 20 Tort Law Review 145. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2392129 - Peter Handford, ‘Intention, Negligence and some statutory conundrums’ (2010) 18 Tort Law Review 140. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2178173 - Peter Handford, ‘Wilkinson v Downton and Acts Calculated to Cause Physical Harm’ (1985) 16(1-2) University of Western Australia Law Review 31 (see Austlii) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWALawRw/1985/2.html - Peter Handford, Peter ‘Intentional Negligence: A contradiction in terms?’ (2010) 32(1) Sydney Law Review 29 (see Austlii) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2178172 - Mark Lunney, ‘Practical Joking and its Penalty: Wilkinson v Downton in Context’ (2002) 10 Tort Law Review 168. - Penelope Watson, ‘Searching the Overfull and Cluttered Shelves: Wilkinson v Downton Rediscovered’ (2004) 23 University of Tasmania Law Review 264. - Christian Witting, ‘Tort Liability for Intended Mental Harm’ (1998) 21(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal 55 (see Austlii) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/1998/35.html - S Wotherspoon, ‘Resuscitating the Wilkinson v Downton Tort in Australia’ (2011) 85 Australian Law Journal 37. - D Lindsay, ‘Casenote: Giller v Procopets – Distress but no damages’ (2004) 11(3) Privacy Law and Policy Reporter (see Austlii) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PrivLawPRpr/2004/41.html

You must refer to the primary sources (cases/relevant legislation) and secondary sources (journal articles, reports etc) referred to above. It is strongly recommended these sources be based upon the Australian context. You will need to use the library’s databases in order to locate the relevant materials. It is NOT sufficient just to refer to textbooks. Google is NOT a research tool!

Essays must be 2000 words or less in length. Students must display an accurate word count on the title page of the assignment; approximate counts will not be accepted. Students will be allowed a 10% leeway either side of 2000 words. Students who exceed the upper word limit will be penalised one mark for every fifty words in excess of the limit. Word limits do not include footnotes or the bibliography.

Footnotes and bibliography are essential components of the assignment. Correct referencing (in accordance with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation) is essential. http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/FinalOnlinePDF-2012Reprint.pdf

Marking: Each essay will be assessed out of 40.(see below for specific assessment rubric)

Torts Essay Evaluation Rubric MARK /40 TORTS ESSAY Demonstrated qualities/standards Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Outstanding Legal Knowledge - Knowledge and understanding of the topic?- Identification of relevant issues?- Identification and application of legal principles - Appropriate use of relevant case law, legislation and secondary sources, especially the set sources. Marker’s evaluation Mark /14

Critical Analysis and evaluation - Interpretation of task and introduction to assignment - Engagement with set readings/sources - Application of reasoning and research from recommended sources to generate appropriate responses - Development of a logical and justifiable argument: a sustained thesis. - Engagement in critical analysis; making reasoned choices amongst alternatives - Conclusions supported by argument?- Individual perspective: insight and originality - Structure of essay: logical organisation; good introduction & conclusion - Was the question answered well? Marker’s evaluation Mark /20

Ethics and Professional Responsibility - Recognition of perspectives of relevant stakeholders Marker’s evaluation Mark /3

Self-Management - Evidence of self directed work, learning and organisation. Marker’s evaluation Mark /3

Other Matters Referencing/footnotes Bibliography Written expression; grammar; syntax

How to Reference "Australia's Tort Law" Term Paper in a Bibliography

Australia's Tort Law.” A1-TermPaper.com, 2014, https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/tort-law-australia/5841674. Accessed 3 Jul 2024.

Australia's Tort Law (2014). Retrieved from https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/tort-law-australia/5841674
A1-TermPaper.com. (2014). Australia's Tort Law. [online] Available at: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/tort-law-australia/5841674 [Accessed 3 Jul, 2024].
”Australia's Tort Law” 2014. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/tort-law-australia/5841674.
”Australia's Tort Law” A1-TermPaper.com, Last modified 2024. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/tort-law-australia/5841674.
[1] ”Australia's Tort Law”, A1-TermPaper.com, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/tort-law-australia/5841674. [Accessed: 3-Jul-2024].
1. Australia's Tort Law [Internet]. A1-TermPaper.com. 2014 [cited 3 July 2024]. Available from: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/tort-law-australia/5841674
1. Australia's Tort Law. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/tort-law-australia/5841674. Published 2014. Accessed July 3, 2024.

Related Term Papers:

Law of Torts Assessment

Paper Icon

Reform of Tort Laws in Australia

Efforts have been underway in recent years to reform the tort laws in Australia in order to ensure that legal mechanisms are in place… read more

Assessment 2 pages (697 words) Sources: 15 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence


Torts Fred and Anna Ivan and Rosina Term Paper

Paper Icon

Torts

Fred and Anna

Ivan and Rosina went out with friends to celebrate their engagement at Bar Roma. Trespass to the person in Australia is dependent on the directness of… read more

Term Paper 4 pages (1273 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence


Private Nuisance Law of Torts Admission Essay

Paper Icon

Private Nuisance Under the Australian Law of Torts

Under the common law, legitimate landowners have a fundamental right to enjoy quiet title to their properties, and this right has been… read more

Admission Essay 3 pages (966 words) Sources: 5 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence


Australian Law on Torts and Defamation Assessment

Paper Icon

Australian Law on Torts and Defamation

Tort Law in Australia

Tort law has assumed increasing relevance and importance in recent years in Australia and the country has gained the reputation… read more

Assessment 17 pages (5206 words) Sources: 15 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence


Arbitration and Its Relation to Family Law Term Paper

Paper Icon

Arbitration and Its Relation to Family Law

Arbitration "Wait 'til court and see what the judge decides." Two increasingly popular, alternative dispute resolution methods to the often tension tainted threat,… read more

Term Paper 17 pages (4559 words) Sources: 30 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence


Wed, Jul 3, 2024

If you don't see the paper you need, we will write it for you!

Established in 1995
900,000 Orders Finished
100% Guaranteed Work
300 Words Per Page
Simple Ordering
100% Private & Secure

We can write a new, 100% unique paper!

Search Papers

Navigation

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!