Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:36

From: Andrew Simester

Subject: Australian/Canadian Query

Rob,

Away from obligations law, you could take a look at Parker v R (1963) 111 CLR 610 (reversed on other grounds (1964) 111 CLR 665) - the Australian decision that decided the HCA was no longer bound by the HoL. I can't remember the exact wording, but in refusing to follow a bad HoL criminal law decision in DPP v Smith, Dixon CJ said the decision was (something like) "misconceived and wrong".

best
Andrew

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DAVID CHEIFETZ  
Sent: Thu 7/10/2008 12:03 PM
To: Neil Foster; Robert Stevens
Subject: Re: Australian/Canadian Query

Dear Rob,

I suppose it's apt I mention Resurfice Corp v Hanke 2007 SCC 7 at para 20: "Much judicial and academic ink has been spilled over the proper test for causation in cases of negligence. It is neither necessary nor helpful to catalogue the various debates." It's at least plausible that that's a reference to the House of Lords’ Fairchild, Barker, Afshar, and Gregg.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>