Indeterminate liability can be mistakenly known as, or considered about, new floodgates conflict

Indeterminate liability can be mistakenly known as, or considered about, new floodgates conflict

(151) The latest Southern Wales Laws Reform Commission, Sum between People Responsible for a comparable Ruin, Statement No 89 (1999) [2.3].

Brand new restrict for the indeterminate accountability features, while we can find, a totally different goal; namely, making certain that the latest debts is discoverable beforehand: see Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australian continent Pty Ltd Aust Torts Account [paragraph] 81-692, 63 676 (Gillard J)

(152) It certainly is of great benefit to a plaintiff so you can sue a therefore-titled ‘common laws defendant’ as opposed to an excellent defendant whoever responsibility is restricted by the statute.

This conflict are ergo directed at safeguarding new productive administration away from fairness

(153) Civil law (Wrongs) Work 2002 (ACT) s 18; Rules Reform (Miscellaneous Terms) Operate 1946 (NSW) s 5; Law Change (Various Specifications) Act 1956 (NT) ss several-13; Rules Reform Act 1995 (Qld) ss 6-7; Law Change (Contributory Carelessness and you can Apportionment away from Liability) Operate 2001 (SA) ss 6-7; Wrongs Work 1954 (Tas) s step 3; Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) ss 23B, 24; Legislation Reform (Contributory Neglect and you may Tortfeasors ‘Contribution) Work 1947 (WA) s 7.

(154) Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge ‘Willemstad’ (1976) 136 CLR 529, 555 (Gibbs J), 593 (Mason J); San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (1986) 162 CLR 340, 353-4 (Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson and Dawson JJ); Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609, 618-19 (Mason CJ, Deane and Gaudron JJ); Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 241, 272 (McHugh J), 302 (Gummow J); Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180, 195 (Gleeson CJ), 199-200 (Gaudron J), 219-23, 233-5 (McHugh J), 289 (Kirby J), 303-5 (Hayne J), 324, 326 (Callinan J); Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552, 563-4 (Gleeson CJ); Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562, 582 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne and San Angelo escort girl Callinan JJ); Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 205 ALR 522, 528-9 (Gleeson C J, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ), 534-5, 543 (McHugh J), 562, 565, 566 (Kirby J). The validity of the floodgates argument has generally been treated with great scepticism: see Australian Conservation Foundation IncvCommonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, 557-8 (Murphy J); Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pry Ltd (1999) 167 ALR 575, 614 (Kirby J); Bowen v Paramount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd 1 NZLR 394, 422 (Cooke J); Van Soest v Residual Health Management Unit 1 NZLR 179, 202-4 (Thomas J); Spartan Steel Alloys Ltd v Martin Co (Contractors) Ltd QB 27, 38 (Lord Denning MR); McLoughlin v O’Brian 1 AC 410, 425 (Lord Edmund-Davies), 441-2 (Lord Bridge); Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317, 399-400 (Hayne J); Hancock v Nominal Defendant 1 Qd R 578, 603 (Davies JA). The floodgates argument is sometimes employed by the courts to deny relief where a ‘flood’ of litigants is apprehended if relief were granted: see, eg, Chester v Council of the Municipality of Waverley (1939) 62 CLR 1, 7-8 (Latham CJ), 11 (Rich J); Van Soest v Residual Health Management Unit 1 NZLR 179, 198-9 (Gault, Henry, Keith and Blanchard JJ); Page v Smith 1 AC 155, 197 (Lord Lloyd); White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police 2 AC 455, 493-4 (Lord Steyn), 503 (Lord Hoffmann); Law Commission for England and Wales, Liability for Psychiatric Illness, Report No 249 (1998) [6.6] fn 9 < It plays on the fear that if the net of liability is cast too widely, the courts will be overwhelmed by a proliferation of claims and become congested, thereby diminishing their ability to dispense justice.