Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:39:40 +1200
Privacy tort in New Zealand
of the list might be interested in the New Zealand Court of Appeal's
apparent recognition of a tort of privacy (although not on the facts
of the case where two children of a TV presenter were snapped by
a photographer in a shopping mall).
is mush spirited debate between the majority who appear to simply
accept that NZ common law is affected by international human right
conventions (with little discussion of the obvious conceptual difficulties)
and Sir Kenneth Keith who thought the developments an unnecessary
infringement in free speech and traditional common law balances.
decision can be found at
& Hosking v Simon Runting & Anor  NZCA 34 (25 March 2004)
Original Message -----
From: Harold Luntz
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:58 PM
Subject: ODG: High Court of Australia on economic loss
High Court of Australia today decided Woolcock Street Investments
Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd  HCA 16 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/
cases/cth/high_ct/2004/16.html>. By a majority of 6:1 it
held that a subsequent purchaser of a commercial building was
owed no duty of care by the engineer who designed the foundations
of the building allegedly defectively. The joint judgment of four
members of the majority carefully confined the decision to the
pleaded facts and the few inferences that could be drawn therefrom.
It was able to decide the present case "without determining
whether doubt should now be cast upon the result at which the
Court arrived in" Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR
609. It also found it unnecessary to consider the overseas authorities.
The other three judgments, particularly the dissenting one of
Kirby J, range more widely.
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next