Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 SEPTEMBER 2009

Gett V Tabet: Status Report

The Court ruled on the vexed issue of loss of a chance - where a defendant's negligence lessens a plaintiff's chances of avoiding greater loss or damage, but falls short of being causative of such loss or damage under traditional principles of legal causation.

AustraliaInsurance

In our April 2009 edition of the Deacons Insurance Update we reported on the NSW Court Appeal's decision in Gett v Tabet.

The Court ruled on the vexed issue of loss of a chance - where a defendant's negligence lessens a plaintiff's chances of avoiding greater loss or damage, but falls short of being causative of such loss or damage under traditional principles of legal causation. The Court of Appeal found against the plaintiff by returning to fundamental principles of causation, and overturning the decision in Rufo v Hosking (2004), previously allowing the plaintiff an award of damages where the plaintiff was only able to prove that a negligent act was causative of the loss of a chance of a better outcome, rather than being causative of actual loss.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from