(151) This new South Wales Law Change Payment, Sum between Individuals Liable for the same Ruin, Report No 89 (1999) [dos.3].

Brand new limit with the indeterminate accountability enjoys, while we will see, a completely other objective; namely, making certain that the fresh new obligations is actually discoverable beforehand: discover Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd Aust Torts Reports [paragraph] 81-692, 63 676 (Gillard J)

(152) It is usually of great benefit to an excellent plaintiff to help you sue a therefore-entitled ‘common rules defendant’ instead of an excellent accused whoever accountability is limited because of the law.

That it disagreement try thus targeted at shielding http://datingranking.net/escort-directory/evansville the new effective government out of justice

(153) Civil-law (Wrongs) Work 2002 (ACT) s 18; Law Reform (Miscellaneous Conditions) Work 1946 (NSW) s 5; Laws Change (Miscellaneous Terms) Operate 1956 (NT) ss a dozen-13; Law Change Act 1995 (Qld) ss six-7; Law Reform (Contributory Neglect and you can Apportionment of Accountability) Operate 2001 (SA) ss 6-7; Wrongs Operate 1954 (Tas) s 3; Wrongs Work 1958 (Vic) ss 23B, 24; Rules Reform (Contributory Negligence and you may Tortfeasors ‘Contribution) Work 1947 (WA) s seven.

(154) Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge ‘Willemstad’ (1976) 136 CLR 529, 555 (Gibbs J), 593 (Mason J); San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (1986) 162 CLR 340, 353-4 (Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson and Dawson JJ); Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609, 618-19 (Mason CJ, Deane and Gaudron JJ); Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 241, 272 (McHugh J), 302 (Gummow J); Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180, 195 (Gleeson CJ), 199-200 (Gaudron J), 219-23, 233-5 (McHugh J), 289 (Kirby J), 303-5 (Hayne J), 324, 326 (Callinan J); Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552, 563-4 (Gleeson CJ); Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562, 582 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne and Callinan JJ); Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 205 ALR 522, 528-9 (Gleeson C J, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ), 534-5, 543 (McHugh J), 562, 565, 566 (Kirby J). The validity of the floodgates argument has generally been treated with great scepticism: see Australian Conservation Foundation IncvCommonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, 557-8 (Murphy J); Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pry Ltd (1999) 167 ALR 575, 614 (Kirby J); Bowen v Paramount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd 1 NZLR 394, 422 (Cooke J); Van Soest v Residual Health Management Unit 1 NZLR 179, 202-4 (Thomas J); Spartan Steel Alloys Ltd v Martin Co (Contractors) Ltd QB 27, 38 (Lord Denning MR); McLoughlin v O’Brian 1 AC 410, 425 (Lord Edmund-Davies), 441-2 (Lord Bridge); Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317, 399-400 (Hayne J); Hancock v Nominal Defendant 1 Qd R 578, 603 (Davies JA). The floodgates argument is sometimes employed by the courts to deny relief where a ‘flood’ of litigants is apprehended if relief were granted: see, eg, Chester v Council of the Municipality of Waverley (1939) 62 CLR 1, 7-8 (Latham CJ), 11 (Rich J); Van Soest v Residual Health Management Unit 1 NZLR 179, 198-9 (Gault, Henry, Keith and Blanchard JJ); Page v Smith 1 AC 155, 197 (Lord Lloyd); White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police 2 AC 455, 493-4 (Lord Steyn), 503 (Lord Hoffmann); Law Commission for England and Wales, Liability for Psychiatric Illness, Report No 249 (1998) [6.6] fn 9 < It plays on the fear that if the net of liability is cast too widely, the courts will be overwhelmed by a proliferation of claims and become congested, thereby diminishing their ability to dispense justice.