Tame v New South Wales

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtHigh Court
JudgeGleeson CJ,Gaudron J,McHugh J,Gummow,KIRBY JJ,Hayne J,Callinan J
Judgment Date05 September 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] HCA 35,2002-0905 HCA A
Docket NumberS83/2001
Date05 September 2002
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
226 cases
3 firm's commentaries
9 books & journal articles
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 Diciembre 2013
    ...reliance and knowledge to be relevant in a recent case. See Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd(2002) 211 CLR 317. 83Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 at [81]. 84 For example, William Norris, “The Duty of Care......
  • The Australian High Court and Social Facts: A Content Analysis Study
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review Nbr. 40-3, September 2012
    • 1 Septiembre 2012
    ...kind of judicial assumption would not be supported today; see the High Court's decision in the Annetts case in Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317. 9 Malbon refers to unarticulated 'judicial values' as the 'dark matter of judgments'. They form a critical part of the substance of the l......
  • Sticks, Stones and Words: Emotional Harm and the English Criminal Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 74-6, December 2010
    • 1 Diciembre 2010
    ...who died in the150 Above n. 149 at 359–60.151 Levit, above n. 13 at 187.152 Tame v New South Wales: Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 35 at[289] (Hayne J); I. Freckleton, ‘New Directions in Compensability for PsychiatricInjuries’ (2002) 9 Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 271.15......
  • Some Comments about 'Caution': Emerging Trends in Irish Negligence Law
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review Nbr. VII-2004, January 2004
    • 1 Enero 2004
    ...decision of the High Court of Australia in the joint cases of Tame v. New South Wales and Annets v. Australian Stations Pty. Ltd. (2002) 191 ALR 449, two members of the High Court strongly rejected this normal fortitude restriction. Instead, Gummow and Kirby JJ. preferred to frame the quest......
  • 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