The defence of joint illegal enterprise
In Smith v Jenkins (‘Smith’),1 the High Court recognised a defence of joint illegal enterprise to liability in the tort of negligence. It affirmed the existence of this defence in a series of cases, the most recent and important of which is Gala v Preston (‘Gala’).2 The correctness of this line of a...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
Melbourne University
2010
|
| _version_ | 1826258097336745984 |
|---|---|
| author | Goudkamp, J |
| author_facet | Goudkamp, J |
| author_sort | Goudkamp, J |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | In Smith v Jenkins (‘Smith’),1 the High Court recognised a defence of joint illegal enterprise to liability in the tort of negligence. It affirmed the existence of this defence in a series of cases, the most recent and important of which is Gala v Preston (‘Gala’).2 The correctness of this line of authority, which has proved highly influential in several other jurisdictions,3 is presently being reconsidered by the High Court in an appeal against the decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Miller v Miller (‘Miller’).4 It is with this appeal that this article is concerned. It makes two central claims. First, in the event that the Court retains the joint illegal enterprise defence, it should perform radical surgery on it so as to render it less offensive to fundamental principles of tort law. The second contention is that the Court should break with its previous decisions recognising the defence — all of which are contaminated by serious confusion — and consign the defence to legal oblivion. It serves no useful purpose and is pregnant with the potential to produce significant injustice. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:28:38Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:08dc3ab0-2caf-40d7-8c0a-9cd7cec667dc |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:28:38Z |
| publishDate | 2010 |
| publisher | Melbourne University |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:08dc3ab0-2caf-40d7-8c0a-9cd7cec667dc2022-03-26T09:15:11ZThe defence of joint illegal enterpriseJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:08dc3ab0-2caf-40d7-8c0a-9cd7cec667dcSymplectic Elements at OxfordMelbourne University2010Goudkamp, JIn Smith v Jenkins (‘Smith’),1 the High Court recognised a defence of joint illegal enterprise to liability in the tort of negligence. It affirmed the existence of this defence in a series of cases, the most recent and important of which is Gala v Preston (‘Gala’).2 The correctness of this line of authority, which has proved highly influential in several other jurisdictions,3 is presently being reconsidered by the High Court in an appeal against the decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Miller v Miller (‘Miller’).4 It is with this appeal that this article is concerned. It makes two central claims. First, in the event that the Court retains the joint illegal enterprise defence, it should perform radical surgery on it so as to render it less offensive to fundamental principles of tort law. The second contention is that the Court should break with its previous decisions recognising the defence — all of which are contaminated by serious confusion — and consign the defence to legal oblivion. It serves no useful purpose and is pregnant with the potential to produce significant injustice. |
| spellingShingle | Goudkamp, J The defence of joint illegal enterprise |
| title | The defence of joint illegal enterprise |
| title_full | The defence of joint illegal enterprise |
| title_fullStr | The defence of joint illegal enterprise |
| title_full_unstemmed | The defence of joint illegal enterprise |
| title_short | The defence of joint illegal enterprise |
| title_sort | defence of joint illegal enterprise |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT goudkampj thedefenceofjointillegalenterprise AT goudkampj defenceofjointillegalenterprise |