----- Original Message ----
From: Neil Foster
To: Robert Stevens
Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 8:53:18 PM
Subject: Re: Australian/Canadian Query
Dear Rob
No, nothing comes to mind that is "dismissive". The closest I could get on a quick hunt were:
(1) In Bryan v Maloney [1995] HCA 17; (1995) 182 CLR 609 at para 21 when the majority reject the House of Lords' approach in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council they say:
Their Lordships' view in that regard seems to us, however, to have rested upon a narrower view of the scope of the modern law of negligence and a more rigid compartmentalization of contract and tort than is acceptable under the law of this country. (take that!!)
(2) In Travel Compensation Fund v Robert Tambree t/as R Tambree and Associates [2005] HCA 69; (2005) 224 CLR 627 when dismissing a "policy" approach to causation Gummow & Hayne JJ say:
There are indications in the United Kingdom that, in determining for the law of tort questions of sufficient or determinative causal linkage, a similar approach to that in Caparo should be adopted by asking whether as "a value judgment" the defendant ought to be held liable (footnote to Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) per Lord Nicholls). However that may be ...
That "however" really stings! :)
So, no, can't come up with anything really. On final reflection I guess Gummow J might say something less than entirely respectful in either Say-Dee or Lumbers but again he mostly attacks the lower Australian state courts rather than the HL, I think.
