There is a very interesting decision of the WA Court of Appeal in Southern Properties (WA) Pty Ltd v Executive Director of the Department of Conservation & Land Management [2012] WASCA 79 (4 April 2012) Southern Properties (thanks to the "Benchmark" email updates for the link.) Was the WA Department liable for property damage caused to grapes in an adjacent vineyard when they carried out a "controlled burn" in a national park to reduce bushfire risk? By 2-1, no. Interesting discussion of the framing of a duty of care, questions of statutory authority, the issue of "non-delegable duty" in a Burnie Port Authority type case, whether a claim in nuisance as well as negligence was available, and the impact of the WA Civil Liability Act provisions on the questions. Pullin JA in dissent also has a discussion of the "social utility" branch of the negligence calculus now required under the CLA (similar to s 1 of the UK Compensation Act 2006 relating to "desirable activities".) The discussion (where he doubts that burning of forests is indeed socially useful) raises all those interesting questions about how courts are meant to decide this sort of question.

Regards

Neil