scholarly journals Duty of Care and Liability of Directors in the CorporateShareholder of the Disappearing Company inApproving Merger between the Unlisted Companies - Supreme court 2015. 7. 23., 2013Da62278 -

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (7) ◽  
pp. 706-727
Author(s):  
Jong-Joon Song
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Duty Of Care

scholarly journals R. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.: More Restrictions on Public Authority Tort Liability

2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 157
Author(s):  
Lewis N. Klar, Q.C.
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Upper Canada ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Regulatory Functions

Since 2001, it has become very difficult for claimants to successfully sue public authorities for their negligent conduct, particularly in relation to their regulatory functions. This primarily has been due to the refined duty of care formula established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Cooper v. Hobart and Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada. As a result of their 2011 R. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has restricted even further the ability of private claimants to successfully sue governments for their regulatory failures.

Dangerous liaisons: new developments in the law of defective premises

Legal Studies ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-416
Author(s):  
Carl F Stychin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Cost

In 1995, the highest courts in two Commonwealth jurisdictions - Canada and Australia - squarely faced the issue of the liability of builders of defective and, in the case of the Canadian Supreme Court, dangerous premises in tort.’ The determination in both cases that the builders were liable to the remote purchasers for the cost of repair, based on a duty of care owed to them, can be contrasted to the current state of tort law in this country dealing with defective and dangerous premises. In fact, the articulation of the reasons why a duty of care was imposed in these cases - as reflecting considerations both of principle and policy - provides a more compelling analysis than has been seen to date in the British law of negligence.

scholarly journals Prenatal Harm and the Duty of Care

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin L. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Wrongful Life ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In this article, the author explores the jurisprudence surrounding a contentious area of tortlaw: wrongful life claims. These claims focus on the situation in which the physician’snegligence lies in the failure to provide the child’s parents with the opportunity to preventthe birth of the child. Historically, courts have been unreceptive to wrongful life claims, andcurrent Canadian jurisprudence on this issue lacks clarity owing to inconsistent treatmentof these cases by the courts. The author exposes errors in reasoning in two cases decided bythe Ontario Court of Appeal, noting that these cases add to the incoherence of the legallandscape. She concludes with an appeal for Supreme Court authority or legislation toclarify the law.

Human Rights Litigation against Multinationals in Practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-84
Author(s):  
Daniel Leader
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Group Actions ◽  
Child Labour ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Ball Rolling ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens

Daniel Leader reviews multinational human rights cases that have developed English law on jurisdiction and parent company liability. He considers the first batch of parent company cases that started the ball rolling in the 1990s, leading to the establishment of the parent company duty of care principle in Chandler v. Cape. He explains the principles of the 2019 and 2021 Supreme Court decisions in Lungowe v. Vedanta and Opkabi v. Shell, and the first trial of a parent company case, where an international auditor was found in breached of its duty to act ethically. The key principles developed on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens are explained. He reviews security and human rights cases, including recent settlements against Gemfields and Kakuzi. He also reviews supply chain cases arising from shipbreaking and child labour on Malawian tobacco farms. Procedural and practical issues concerning discovery, group actions, witness anonymity, and funding and viability of cases are outlined.

scholarly journals Do We Really Need the Anns Test for Duty of Care in Negligence?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joost Blom
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
Negligence Law

Since its formal adoption in 1984, the Supreme Court of Canada has applied the Anns test31 times. This article uses those decisions to assess the test’s value in negligence law. Basedon that analysis, the Anns test has two disadvantages: (1) it treats dissimilar duty questionsas if they were alike; and (2) it can divert courts into an Anns analysis when a more directapproach to duty of care would be better. However, despite its disadvantages, three decadesof continued use by the Supreme Court makes it unlikely that the Anns test will beabandoned anytime soon.

3. Duty of care: basic principles

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 58-77
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

This chapter begins by tracing the development of the duty of care starting with the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]. It goes on to consider the various general tests developed and used by the courts in order to establish when a duty of care is owed. Finally, the chapter discusses the ‘incremental and by analogy’ and so-called Caparo three-stage ‘test’ established by the House of Lords in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] and recently reconsidered by the UK Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018].

3. Duty of care: basic principles

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-77
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

This chapter begins by tracing the development of the duty of care starting with the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]. It goes on to consider the various general tests developed and used by the courts in order to establish when a duty of care is owed. Finally, the chapter discusses the ‘incremental and by analogy’ and so-called Caparo three-stage ‘test’ established by the House of Lords in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] and recently reconsidered by the UK Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018].

scholarly journals The Principle of Trust for Exceptions to the Non-Regression Clause in the Case of Delict of Negligence

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 86-94
Author(s):  
Laura Feldmanis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Level Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Comprehensive List ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
A Chain ◽  
General Communication ◽  
Traffic Rules

The delict of negligence is defined in terms of violation of the duty of care. While that duty entails displaying the level of care required from anyone and necessary for communication in the relevant society, there is no comprehensive list of the standards pertaining to the duty of care, especially as would be foreseeable from an objective perspective. In addition, a question arises: in which case does the person have to take responsibility in accordance with the delict of negligence for damaging a person’s legal rights stemming from a crime committed by a third party, or rather is this specific person’s duty restricted to his own acts. While the answer may seem at first glance to be provided by the non-regression clause, in line with which a person’s intervention within a chain created by the person who caused the original threat rules out the possibility of accusing the person who caused the original threat, the matter is not so simple: exceptions to the non-regression clause exist, and it is not always applicable. Certain principles are employed in the dogmatics of penal law accordingly, to specify how the duty of care and objective predictability are substantiated and how to handle exceptions to the non-regression clause. One of these rules, which is an outgrowth of the traffic rules, is the principle of trust. Applied not just with regard to traffic but also in situations of division of duties and in relation to general communication between people, this principle has been confirmed in Estonian Supreme Court practice. The article considers two significant questions that arise in connection with the principle of trust: firstly, in what cases is there a reason to trust, and, secondly, where is there a reason to doubt? After addressing the meaning of the principle of trust, the paper examines the effect on liability in scenarios wherein the person who originally caused the threat acts out of negligence yet the threat caused by that person is actualised in the form of an act violating legal rights by another, realised in either delict of negligence or an intentional delict. Finally, the article presents the conclusion that it is important to investigate which element of the structure of delict the principle of trust belongs to.

scholarly journals Council liability for leaky buildings in New Zealand: An analysis of McNamara v Auckland City Council

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Philip Zander
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
City Council ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
General Development ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Difficult Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Code Compliance

<p>This paper discusses the Supreme Court decision in McNamara v Auckland City Council. As McNamara is on the fringes of the existing body of law, the Supreme Court had a difficult decision on whether to extend liability, in line with the general development of this area of law or to restrict liability and reverse the earlier trends. William Young, McGrath and Blanchard JJ in the majority held that the Auckland City Council was not in a proximate relationship. The Council owed no duty of care to inspect the procedural validity of the building certificates or the validity of the code compliance certificate in the LIM report. Joined by Tipping J, the majority further concluded the s50(3) good faith defence would also prevail in both situations. Elias CJ dissented on all issues. This paper analyses the decisions and available facts against the accepted negligence framework and analyses policy issues concluding that the approach of Elias CJ is to be preferred to harmonise defective building law.</p>

scholarly journals Council liability for leaky buildings in New Zealand: An analysis of McNamara v Auckland City Council

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Philip Zander
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
City Council ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
General Development ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Difficult Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Code Compliance

<p>This paper discusses the Supreme Court decision in McNamara v Auckland City Council. As McNamara is on the fringes of the existing body of law, the Supreme Court had a difficult decision on whether to extend liability, in line with the general development of this area of law or to restrict liability and reverse the earlier trends. William Young, McGrath and Blanchard JJ in the majority held that the Auckland City Council was not in a proximate relationship. The Council owed no duty of care to inspect the procedural validity of the building certificates or the validity of the code compliance certificate in the LIM report. Joined by Tipping J, the majority further concluded the s50(3) good faith defence would also prevail in both situations. Elias CJ dissented on all issues. This paper analyses the decisions and available facts against the accepted negligence framework and analyses policy issues concluding that the approach of Elias CJ is to be preferred to harmonise defective building law.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document