Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtHigh Court
Judgment Date1985
Neutral Citation1985-0704 HCA B,[1985] HCA 41
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
315 cases
3 firm's commentaries
  • Property & Projects - What's News - 19 May 2015
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 29 May 2015
    ...limitation period and to subsequent conduct — Darley Main Colliery Co v Mitchell (1886) 11 App Cas 127; Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985] HCA 41; (1985) 157 CLR 424, considered. This appeal concerns a dispute which arose after a concrete slab was cast on land in Thornbury in about Ma......
  • Duty of Care and the 'Salient Features' Test
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 29 March 2010
    ...second, that there must have been actual reliance. His Honour noted that pursuant to the decisions of Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985] HCA 41 and Pyrenees Shire Council v Day [1998] HCA 3 it is not necessarily actual reliance that is important but 'foreseeability or knowledge of tha......
  • Heading The Ball: Part Of The Game Or An Industrial Disease
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 23 November 2022
    ...the development of the law of negligence recommended by Brennan J. in theHigh Court of Australia in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 60 A.L.R. 1, 43-44, where he said:"It is preferable, in my view, that the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analo......
7 books & journal articles
  • The Law of Bureaucratic Negligence in South Africa: A Comparative Commonwealth Perspective
    • South Africa
    • Acta Juridica Nbr. , August 2019
    • 15 August 2019
    ...class of persons to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of itmay give rise.’19Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 60ALR 1 (HCA); Caparo Industries plc v Dickman& Others [1990] 1 All ER 568 (HL); Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2All ER 908(HL).20See the following......
  • Horizontal Effect and the Constitutional Constraint
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 74-6, November 2011
    • 1 November 2011
    ...above,273.139 ibid, 271.140 ibid, 272.141 ibid, 273.142 n 59 above.143 Kavanagh, n 71 above,272.144 See eg Sutherland Shire Council vHeyman 60 ALR 1, 43–44 (Brennan J), cited with approval inCaparo vDickman [1990] 2 AC 605,633–634 (Lord Oliver); Malone vMetropolitan Police Commis-sioners [1......
  • The use and Enforcement of Soft Law by Australian Public Authorities
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review Nbr. 42-1, March 2014
    • 1 March 2014
    ...for finding that a duty of care is owed by a private actor, who would in any case generally have the right to refuse assistance. 168 (1985) 157 CLR 424 ('Sutherland SC v Heyman'). 169 Ibid 458 (Mason J). See a lso at 467–8 (Mason J). Note that the plaintiff in Heyman was unsuccessful in est......
  • State liability and accountability
    • South Africa
    • Acta Juridica Nbr. , August 2019
    • 15 August 2019 negative, or to reduce or limit thescope of the duty and the class of person to whom it is owed’: Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman(1985) 60 ALR 1. The approach in Anns was rejected in SouthAfrica in Lillicrap, Wassenaar andPartners v Pilkington Bros (SA) (Pty) Ltd 1985 (1) SA475 (A) 500......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT