Bevan v Coolahan

(2019) 101 NSWLR 86; [2019] NSWCA 217

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Negligence
2. › Duty of care
3. › Joint illegal enterprise
4. › Whether driver owed duty of care to passenger where both participants in joint criminal enterprise to obtain illicit drugs
5. › Whether statutory purpose of criminal laws incongruous with driver owing passenger a duty of care
6. › Whether passenger complicit in driver's offences
7. › Miller v Miller (2011) 242 CLR 446
8. › Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), ss 111, 112
9. › Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 10, 11, 12
1. Negligence
2. › Illegality defence
3. › Relationship between common law defence and statute
4. › Whether Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 54 displaced common law principles governing joint illegal enterprise
5. › Whether s 54 exclusively governed the field
6. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 3A, 54
1. Negligence
2. › Contributory negligence
3. › Motor vehicle accident
4. › Passenger travelling with drug-affected driver
5. › Whether primary judge's assessment of 25% erroneous
6. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5R

Quick Take

In NSW, the common law defence of joint illegal enterprise as articulated in Miller v Miller continues to operate alongside s 54 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), and where participants in a joint criminal enterprise to acquire illicit drugs use a motor vehicle, the driving offences under ss 111 and 112 of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) are attributed to all participants, rendering it incongruous for the driver to owe a duty of care to a co-participant passenger.