Skip to content

Tip fire: representative proceedings May 23, 2018

TORTS – representative proceedings – negligence – plaintiff suffered injury through fire – determination of liability – no claim for pure economic loss – ignition of fire – origins – causation – spread or escape of fire – common law principles – existence and scope of duty of care – novelty of duty –salient features relevant to duty of care – reasonably foreseeability – knowledge of defendant significance of harm – relationship – vulnerability indeterminacy – breach – statutory conditions regarding breach of duty –s 5B Civil Liability Act 2002 – risk not insignificant – whether reasonable person would take precautions – probability of harm – likely seriousness of harm – burden of taking precautions – social utility – s 42 Civil Liability Act 2002 – statutory defence –general v specific allocation – specific resource allocation for waste management – no defence made out – whether precautions were reasonable – defendant should have adopted and implemented specific fire precautions – breach found – causation – whether precautions would have prevented the injury caused by fire spread – failure to prove factual causation – negligence not established by plaintiff – nuisance – proprietary rights over affected land – unreasonable interference – in absence of negligence defendant not liable in nuisance – claim by plaintiff dismissed – directions regarding common questions and costs


Weber v Greater Hume Shire Council [2018] NSWSC 667

Related Articles:

Obvious and insignificant risk resulting from unevenness in surface

Implying law into contracts

The meaning and effect of granting liberty to apply

Stay pending appeal




Social Media

Subscribe to the weekly newsletter

Please enter your name.
Please enter a valid email address.
Something went wrong. Please check your entries and try again.
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By :
Scroll To Top