Similarity and contrasts between thermodynamic properties at the critical point of liquid alkali metals and of electron-hole droplets

The recent experimental study by means of time-resolved luminescence measurements of an electron-hole liquid (EHL) in diamond by Shimano et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 057404] prompts us to compare and contrast critical temperature T_c and critical density n_c relations in liquid alkali metals with those in electron-hole liquids. The conclusion drawn is that these systems have similarities with regard to critical properties. In both cases the critical temperature is related to the cube root of the critical density. The existence of this relation is traced to Coulomb interactions and to systematic trends in the dielectric constant of the electron-hole systems. Finally a brief comparison between the alkalis and EHLs of the critical values for the compressibility ratio Z_c is also given

Sports Injuries and the Right to Damages

This article examines the availability of damages at common law for injured sportspersons and the potential liability of employers, organisers, and facility providers in the sporting industry. The article discusses the common law action of the torts of negligence and trespass are considered. Cases discussed include: Agar v Hyde; Rogers v Budgen; Noak v Waverley Municipal Council; Bartels v Bankstown City Council; and McNamara v Duncan

THE BIRTH TORTS: DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL BIRTH AND WRONGFUL LIFE

[This article examines the capacity of parents of children (whether dis- abled or not) born as a result of medical negligence to sue for the costs associated with the birth and raising of the children (‘wrongful birth’), as well as the capacity of disabled children who owe their existence to medi- cal negligence to sue for the costs associated with the disability (‘wrong- ful life’). Many legal systems have allowed the first type of claim, but very few have allowed the second type. The author argues that allowing both types of claim is consistent with ordinary principles of tort law, and that there are no policy reasons that override this conclusion. Consequently, a range of damages ought to be available in relation to both types of claim.]

The High Court's lost chance in medical negligence: Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537

In 2010 the High Court of Australia in Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537 determined an appeal in a medical negligence case concerning a six-year-old girl who had presented to a major paediatric hospital with symptoms over several weeks of headaches and vomiting after a recent history of chicken pox. The differential diagnosis was varicella, meningitis or encephalitis and two days later, after she deteriorated neurologically, she received a lumbar puncture. Three days later she suffered a seizure and irreversible brain damage. A CT scan performed at that point showed a brain tumour. As Australia does not have a no-fault system providing compensation to cover the long-term care required for such a condition, the girl (through her parents and lawyers) sued her treating physician. She alleged that, because a cerebral CT scan was not performed when clinically indicated after the diagnosis of meningitis or encephalitis and before the lumbar puncture, she had "lost the chance" to have her brain tumour treated before she sustained permanent brain damage. She succeeded at first instance, but lost on appeal. The High Court also rejected her claim, holding unanimously that there were no policy reasons to allow recovery of damages based on possible (less than 50%) "loss of a chance" of a better medical outcome. The court held that the law of torts in Australia required "all or nothing" proof that physical injury was caused or contributed to by a negligent party. The High Court, however, did not exclude loss of chance as forming the substance of a probable (greater than 50%) claim in medical negligence in some future case. In the meantime, patients injured in Australia as a result of possible medical negligence (particularly in the intractable difficult instances of late diagnosis) must face the injustice of the significant day-to-day care needs of victims being carried by family members and the taxpayer-funded public hospital system. The High Court in Tabet v Gett again provides evidence that, as currently constituted, it remains deaf to the injustice caused by State legislation excessively restricting the access to reasonable compensation by victims of medical negligence

Directors\u27 duty to use their powers for proper or permissable purposes

This article focuses generally on the interaction among several internal company law doctrines such as the supremacy of the articles of association; that other organs cannot interfere with powers exclusively conferred upon a particular organ; that courts will not readily interfere with internal company matters; that directors are under a duty to act in good faith and in the best interest of the company as a whole and under a duty to use their powers for proper or permissible purposes; and that there are some remedies available to shareholders if directors did not perform their powers for a proper or permissible purpose. The specific aim with the article is to establish when and why the courts will be prepared to set aside decisions by directors if they have taken them for an improper or impermissible purpose. The article concludes that the courts will be prepared to set the decisions of directors aside when they have used a particular power substantially or primarily for an improper or impermissible purpose. When the exercise of directors\u27 powers is challenged under circumstances where there were both permissible and impermissible purposes for exercising a particular power, there is no alternative for the court but to inquire into the complex area of the state of mind of those who acted and the motive on which they acted. This is, in fact, second-guessing the decisions of directors.<br /

Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer

This case note examines the decision of the High Court of Australia in Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer, which marks the common law's continued departure from shared liability, for tragic accidents into the realm of personal liability The decision has particular significance for children and young people who may be held accountable for their reckless actions, notwithstanding the 'exuberance of youth. In particular the case note analyses the High Court's emphasis on obvious risks and personal responsibility and the Court's attempt to limit liability through a consideration of the plaintiffs conduct on questions of the scope of the duty of care and at the breach of duty enquiry rather than confining it to the issue of the plaintiff's contributory negligence