Case Authorities Flashcards by Brianna Woodall

Q

Protects use and enjoyment of land

A

Sadleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

Title to sue

A

Hunter v Canary wharf

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

Not mere licensee

A

Hunter v canary wharf

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

Adopting the nuisance

A

Sadleigh-denfield v o’callaghan

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

rights attached to the land

A

Munro v Southern dairies

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

Continuing or isolated nuisance

A

Hargrave v Goldman

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

substantial interference

A

Munro

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

unreasonable

A

bamford v turnley

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

locality

A

Munro

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

time and duration

A

Mckenzie v Powley

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

nature of activities

A

Munro

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

alternative means

A

munro

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

Abnormal sensitivity

A

hollywood v emmett

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

defendant’s motive

A

hollywood v emmett

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

duty of care

A

donoghue v stevenson

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

occupier

A

strong v woolworths

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

employers

A

smith v charles baker & sons

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

road users

A

imbree v mcneilly

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

scope of road users

A

Bourhill v young

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

school authorities

A

commonwealth v introvigne

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

professionals

A

rogers v whittaker

How well did you know this?

1

Not at all

2

3

4

5

Perfectly

Q

vicarious liability

Study These Flashcards

A

NSW v lepore; hollis v vabu

Q

Non delegable duties

Study These Flashcards

A

kondis v state transport authority

Q

wrongful mode (employee)

Study These Flashcards

A

bugge v brown

multi-factor approach

sullivan v moody

recognised psychiatric injury

Tame v NSW; Annetts v stations

reasonable foreseeability in PI

gifford v strang patrick stevedoring

direct perception, sudden shock, normal fortitude

tame v nsw

relationship, control, vulnerability

Annetts v stations

indeterminate liability

sullivan v moody

economic loss approach

fortuna seafoods

objective test

imbree v mcneilly

children in breach

mchale v watson

skill in breach

rogers v whitaker

inexperience in breach

imbree v mcneilly

risk foreseeable and not insignificant

wyong shire council v shirt

probability, likely seriousness, burden, social utility

RTA v Dederer

anticipation, customary, statutory and professional

wyong shire council v shirt

factual causation on the balance of probabilities

tabet v gett

but for test

wallace v kam

causation and policy

tabet v gett

court must be justified

fairchild v glenhaven funeral services

foreseeability in damage

chapman v hearse

voluntary act

haber v walker

contributory negligence

josslyn v berryman

just and equitable

pennington v norris

legal risk

rootes v shelton

joint illegal enterprise

miller v miller

heads of damages

CSR Ltd v Eddy

Hospital and medical damages

Malec v JC Hutton

gratuitous services

griffiths v kerkemeyer

period of compensation

skelton v collins

charitable payment

zheng v cai

sick pay

graham v baker