Case Law

3220 Words May 15th, 2012 13 Pages
Explain how the High Court decision in Perre & Ors v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) differed in principle from the High Court decision in Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstad” (1976).
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Wilemstad” (1976) and Perre & Ors v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) has been important cases in the history of Tort Law.
Negligence is a complex term including advertent and inadvertent acts and omissions where there has been a failure to take reasonable care to prevent loss, damage or injury to others whom they could reasonably have foreseen might have been injured if that care was not taken. (Pentony at al. 2011)
There are different categories of negligence and the one concerning the above mentioned cases
…show more content…
they were vulnerable * However, the justices abandoned proximity as the sole basis of identifying a duty of care and took a number of individual approaches in this case with the most notable being the plaintiffs’ vulnerability and inability to protect themselves. * There were some particular policy considerations that have been identified by the courts as being relevant in these types of cases, the most often cited policy consideration in these cases is the fear of indeterminate liability’
The difference in decisions of High Court: - * Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Wilemstad” (1976) case was decided based on factors like duty of care, reasonable foreseeability of harm and proximity. * In Perre & Ors v Apand Pty Ltd (1999), factors like duty of care, plaintiff’s vulnerability and inability to protect themselves were the main considerations apart from factors of policy considerations like indeterminate liability while arriving at the conclusion not placing major reliance on proximity.
Question 2
Andrew was not a regular wine drinker but to celebrate his anniversary with Mary, he decided to find the perfect red wine to

More about Case Law

Open Document