Indeterminate responsibility can often be incorrectly called, otherwise regarded as regarding, the latest floodgates argument
(151) New Southern area Wales Law Reform Payment, Contribution between Individuals Accountable for a comparable Wreck, Declaration Zero 89 (1999) [2.3].
The latest limit towards indeterminate liability possess, as we will see, an entirely additional goal; particularly, ensuring that the latest obligations is discoverable ahead of time: come across Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd Aust Torts Account [paragraph] 81-692, 63 676 (Gillard J)
(152) It’s always of great advantage to good plaintiff to help you sue a therefore-titled ‘common law defendant’ in the place of good accused whoever responsibility is restricted because of the statute.
That it dispute are thus targeted at protecting the latest effective management off fairness
(153) Civil-law (Wrongs) Operate 2002 (ACT) s 18; Legislation Reform (Miscellaneous Specifications) Act 1946 (NSW) s 5; Rules Reform (Various Arrangements) Act 1956 (NT) ss a dozen-13; Law Reform Work 1995 (Qld) ss six-7; Legislation Change (Contributory Carelessness and Apportionment of Liability) Work 2001 (SA) ss 6-7; Wrongs Operate 1954 (Tas) s step three; Wrongs Work 1958 (Vic) ss 23B, 24; Law Change (Contributory Neglect and Tortfeasors ‘Contribution) escort services in Savannah Operate 1947 (WA) s 7.
(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.