Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 MAY 2015

Proportionate liability: The High Court resolves the dispute

Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Contributor
Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth is Australia’s leading independent law firm. We provide exceptional legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Corrs Chambers Westgarth

The court resolved conflict between two decisions about the application of the statutory proportionate liability regimes.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Yesterday, in Selig v Wealthsure [2015] HCA 18, the High Court resolved the conflict between two Full Federal Court decisions concerning the application of statutory proportionate liability regimes contained in the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (ASIC Act).

Ordinarily, concurrent wrongdoers are each liable to a plaintiff for the entirety of the plaintiff's loss, regardless of their respective contributions to that loss. The rule, known as solidary liability, has been displaced in certain circumstances by the introduction of statutory proportionate liability regimes. In respect of claims that are defined as apportionable, the regimes operate to limit the liability of concurrent wrongdoers to their share of responsibility for the resulting loss or damage. Solidary liability remains for claims falling outside the regimes (non-apportionable claims), such as negligence, breach of contract, misleading takeover or

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