Resources

Module 8 Slides

Download a copy of the Day 2 PowerPoint slides here. The Module 8 slides have been bookmarked for your ease of reference.

Negligent and/or Deliberate and/or Repeated

It is clear the intent of the Ethical Suppliermeans an enterprise known to be capable of supplying required goods and/or services. It includes manufacturers, stockists, resellers, merchants, distributors, consultants and contractors. Mandate is that it will only impact suppliers that negligently and/or deliberately and/or repeatedly breachbreach of the Ethical Supplier Mandate or Ethical Supplier Threshold, where a supplier has been determined to be non-compliant with the requirements of the policy.
• For the purposes of this po... contractual obligations, policies, or laws.

In considering ‘Negligence’ and to assist in having a consistent approach to this across Government we apply the ‘General Principles’ identified in section 9 of The Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the Act’) which regulates civil claims for damages for harm in Queensland.

To be successful in a claim of negligence in Queensland, plaintiffs must prove a duty of care was owed to them by the defendant and prove all of the elements contained in sections 9 and 11, on the balance of probabilities. This measure is what should be adopted in making your assessment.

Section 9(1) of the Act outlines the definition of negligent behaviour. It provides that

(1) A person does not breachbreach of the Ethical Supplier Mandate or Ethical Supplier Threshold, where a supplier has been determined to be non-compliant with the requirements of the policy.
• For the purposes of this po... a duty to take precautions against a risk of harm unless—

(a) the risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought reasonably to have known); and

(b) the risk was not insignificant; and

(c) in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the position of the person would have taken the precautions.

Section 9(2) of the Act defined the precautions listed in 9(1)(c) that a reasonable person would have taken. It provides that:

(2) In deciding whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court is to consider the following (among other relevant things)—

(a) the probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken;

(b) the likely seriousness of the harm;

(c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm;

(d) the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm.

Back to Module

Not intended as legal advice. Read full disclaimer.