Roddan & Anor v Shore [2001] WASCA 373 — BarristerAI

Roddan & Anor v Shore

[2001] WASCA 373

Western Australia Court of Appeal26 November 2001

View on AustLII View on JADE Download

Judges

Wallwork J, Murray J

Headnote

No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.

Generate the headnote

Free trial · no card required

Case Details

Citation[2001] WASCA 373

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWa

Decision Date26 November 2001

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Judges

Wallwork J · Murray J

Subsequent Judicial Consideration1›

Cases that have considered Roddan & Anor v Shore

Referred to (1)

PISANO -v- SOUTH METROPOLITAN HEALTH SERVICE [2023] WASCA 80

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

PISANO -v- SOUTH METROPOLITAN HEALTH SERVICE [2023] WASCA 80Referred to

The Hindmarsh-Petrie test for vicarious sub-tortfeasor liability requires the principal to have had actual or constructive knowledge of the sub-tortfeasor's propensity to act unlawfully in the course of the engagement, and that the engagement created the occasion for the wrongful conduct

The Hindmarsh-Petrie test for vicarious sub-tortfeasor liability requires the principal to have had actual or constructive knowledge of the sub-tortfeasor's propensity to act unlawfully in the course of the engagement, and that the engagement created the occasion for the wrongful conduct.

Roddan & Anor v Shore at [30]

Where a representee establishes that a representation was made with reckless indifference to truth, the Castlereagh-Mornington doctrine of estoppel by representation permits an estoppel even absent proof of detrimental reliance, provided the representor's conduct evinces a settled intention to mislead

Where a representee establishes that a representation was made with reckless indifference to truth, the Castlereagh-Mornington doctrine of estoppel by representation permits an estoppel even absent proof of detrimental reliance, provided the representor's conduct evinces a settled intention to mislead.

Roddan & Anor v Shore at [37]

Judges

Headnote

Case Details

Built by Barristers,For Australian Law.

Judgment

Subsequent Judicial Consideration1›

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.