Britain’s highest court, the Law Lords, “ruled that lesser courts correctly threw out an application by passengers or their families seeking to sue two airlines, British Airways and China Airlines, for death and injury from deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The action was a test case that could have thrown the air industry open to compensation claims for millions of pounds.” (Martin Hickman, The Independent, Dec. 9; Simon Calder, The Independent, Dec. 9; Joshua Rozenberg, Daily Telegraph, Dec. 9). More: see Jun. 25 (Australia), Oct. 3, 2004 (U.S.), etc.
Posts Tagged ‘Australia’
Oz: “PC rules blamed for Santa shortage”
Another one from Australia:
Disillusioned by a growing list of rules imposed by recruiting agencies and shopping centres to guard against litigation, men who have brought smiles to the faces of thousands of young West Australians for decades are reluctantly deciding to call it quits.
They can’t hand out lollies, they can’t pat children on the head because of religious beliefs, they can’t put children on their laps unless they get permission from parents and they can’t have photographs taken with youngsters unless their hands are in full view.
So frightened have some Santas become of being sued that they are demanding extra helpers to act as witnesses just in case a complaint is made.
(Joe Spagnolo, Daily Telegraph (Aus.), Dec. 4). For discouragement of Christmas parties Down Under, see our Friday item. More Santa-related items from around the English-speaking world: Dec. 24, 2004; Dec. 30, 2003; Oct. 9-10, 2002; Oct. 12 and Dec. 13-14, 2000.
Christmas parties
Australian employers, too, are rethinking them given the possible liability exposures (Nick O’Malley, “Bosses pull the plug on parties”, Sydney Morning Herald, Nov. 1). More: Sarah Pierce, “Avoiding Holiday Lawsuits”, Entrepreneur.com, Dec. 3, 2003; “Mistletoe or Legal Woes”, Lawyers.com, Dec. 3, 2004.
Squabbling Oz opera companies
They’ve been fighting over a A$1.8 million bequest left by the late Edith Melva Thompson, with the result that at least a third of the sum is expected to be consumed in legal fees. (Katrina Strickland, “Lawyers the winners in bequest to opera”, The Australian, Oct. 27).
“If you say so, then fine with me”
Tales of the expert witness biz: Australian lawyers in an copyright infringement case, acting on behalf of the makers of the Kazaa file-sharing program, ran into trouble when the expert witness they’d hired, Keith Ross of Polytechnic U. in New York, was revealed as perhaps a bit too agreeable to their interests for their own good. “Evidence tendered showed that Professor Ross admitted he had not tested propositions Clayton Utz’s solicitors had inserted in his draft report, but accepted them anyway.” A judge discounted Ross’s testimony with scathing remarks; the law firm insists it never intended to put words in his mouth. And:
[New South Wales] Legal Services Commissioner Steve Mark said solicitors often put pressure on witnesses to come up with a particular result, and his office took a firm stand on lawyers who coached witnesses or attempted to influence their findings.
“A lawyer’s primary duty is to the court,” he said.
(Garth Montgomery, “Music copyright facts fine-tuned”, The Australian, Sept. 9).
Update: U.K. religious-vilification law
The Blair government, encountering more resistance than it had anticipated, has agreed to soften some of the aspects of the hate-speech bill (Oct. 19, etc.) that are most menacing to freedom of expression:
After suffering a defeat in the [House of] Lords on Tuesday by 260 votes to 111, the Government chose not to oppose an amendment drafted by the Liberal Democrat lawyer Lord Lester with cross-party support. This introduces a number of safeguards.
First, prosecutors would have to prove that the defendant intended to stir up religious hatred; mere likelihood would not be enough. Second, the words or behaviour would have to be threatening rather than merely abusive or insulting. And, crucially, there would be protection for freedom of expression.
Notwithstanding the improvements, the history of such legislation in Australia (see Dec. 3, 2004) suggests that civil libertarians are right to take a stand against the whole thrust of the legislation. “Even if no prosecutions are brought, the Act will inhibit public debate on issues of great importance.” (Joshua Rozenberg, “A legal lesson from Down Under”, Daily Telegraph, Oct. 27).
Contesting a will? Watch out
Australia: Two sisters decided to dispute their brother’s favored position in a farm inheritance. Result? “the sisters spent [A]$450,000 in legal fees to get [A]$360,000. And the total cost of battling out the inheritance came to $605,000.” (Vanda Carson, “The lawyers will win”, The Australian, Oct. 21).
Oz lawyers: let’s sue docs who are late for appointments
Australia’s ABC network discusses the idea (“Law group suggests legal action over late doctors”, Sept. 13) as do KevinMD’s commenters (Sept. 13). It’s not actually new, though: a Nevada patient filed an action in small claims court two years ago after having to wait three hours to see his doctor (see Aug. 1, 2003). That case, as a news search reveals, was settled when the doctor agreed to write a letter of apology and donate to charity (Joelle Babula, “Letter ends lawsuit, patient says”, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sept. 24, 2003)(other coverage in same paper).
Caesarean sections in Australia
Use of the procedure seems to be following the American path, “and could soon hit a record of 32 per cent of deliveries — far higher than in countries such as Britain and New Zealand.” Among the factors:
Andrew Pesce, consultant obstetrician at Westmead Hospital in Sydney, told the conference litigation was a factor in the caesarean rates.
No obstetrician had ever been sued for doing a caesarean, while some of the largest medical negligence payouts — including the $11 million Calandre Simpson case in 2001- – followed claims the doctor should have performed a caesarean section earlier, Dr Pesce said.
(Adam Cresswell, “Midwives left ‘powerless’ by soaring caesar births”, The Australian, Sept. 5). See Nov. 29, 2004; Jul. 18 and Aug. 13, 2003; and Feb. 5, 2001.
Australia: High Court upholds injury-ad ban
By a 5-2 margin, Australia’s High Court has rejected a constitutional challenge to a ban imposed by the country’s most populous state, New South Wales, on advertisements intended to solicit personal-injury law work. Plaintiff’s lawyers had unsuccessfully argued that such ads amounted to political speech deserving of protection, but the court ruled that they were more plausibly understood as commercial solicitations. The two dissenters were Justice Michael McHugh, who apparently embraced a reading of the national constitution under which states could not constitutionally enact legislation “which has the effect or object of reducing litigation” — surprised our ATLA hasn’t come up with that one — and Justice Michael Kirby. (Michael Pelly, “Injury ad ban to stay, judges rule”, Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 2).