Tort reform is, more often than not, sold on the basis of reform to a perceived 'crisis', or 'crises'. I don't know exactly what has precipitated the proposals in the UK as I do not follow English politics. But I can almost bet the same politics were involved in the UK as have been used in Australia. And make no mistake - it's a long haul and the legislators have to have at least one eye on the Court of Appeal (UK). In Australia the equivalent is the High Court.
I think this article does a reasonable job at explaining some of the basics of tort reform. Have a read and if you have any questions I will do my best to assist with an answer. I read this stuff all the time so it looks normal to me - some of my friends tell me it not easy to read but let me know what you think.
Start at page 443. While the article is a bit old (in the law that is normal) it does produce a reasonable veiw point of the respective Civil Liability Acts around Australia (CLA's). The CLA's are the legislated reforms to tort law (as opposed to changes produced by the common law, or case law).
In any event, I think that the article demonstrates the complex nature of tort reform generally and in the area of personal injury and negligence.
Interesting stuff - well maybe
Here's a good paragraph to whet your appetite. While the fundamental principles of tort law are found in the common law, legislation has nevertheless played a significant role since the mid 19th Century. Legislative intervention in tort law has historically tended to be piecemeal and context-driven, through specific extensions or restrictions of liability rather than through broad-ranging reforms. Overall, and until recently, legislatures have been more concerned with supplementing or extending common law remedies than with restricting them.
There is a case noted in that article (footnote 8) that explains the ideal legislative process described by Justice Mason in, Government Insurance Commission (SA) v Trigwell (1979) 142 CLR 617 at 633–634
The UK Govt would do well to consider some his points before embarking on their little expedition into tort reform. English law and Australian law are blood brothers - they both had the same parents.
And what would that idiot in the SMH have said about all of this - nothing - absolutely nothing.
That peanut chose to write about SGH being the winners of some concocted award while resurrecting the pain of all of those who lost their hard earned dollars in the Alco Finance fiasco.
