Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 MAY 2013

Shoring in the Trenches of the Civil Liability Act

This case shows the importance of correctly construing and interpreting the legislation to govern each cause of action.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

McDonald v Shoalhaven City Council [2013] NSWCA 81

Judgment date: 18 April 2013
Jurisdiction: New South Wales Court of Appeal1

In Brief

  • Section 3B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (CLA) will be strictly interpreted in determining whether a claim falls for assessment under the CLA, the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WCA) or any other legislation, even if the duty of care arises from a derivative duty imposed by a differing legislative regime or pursuant to a cause of action which is excluded by s 3B.
  • A court must properly consider all evidence put before it when making a determination as to what evidence is to be accepted or rejected.
  • The statutory test requiring that the risk of harm to a person be "not insignificant" is more demanding or onerous, albeit only slightly, than the common law test that a risk of harm be "not far-fetched or fanciful".

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