Evolution or Revolution? Conflict in the High Court

  • John Miller

Abstract

Recently in Trident General Insurance Co. Limited v. McNiece Bros. Pty Limited1 the High Court was faced with the question whether a third party beneficiary under a policy of insurance was able to sue on the policy. It was argued that the rules that only a party to a contract may sue on it and that consideration must move from the promisee, were so fundamental and so embedded in our law of contract, that they should not be overturned by judicial decision to allow recovery by the named beneficiary on the policy. The Court was asked to consider a rule of law, jus quaesitum tertio, thought to have been firmly entrenched since 1861. Focus was thrown on the question as to how far the High Court could overthrow long established legal principles.

Downloads

Total Abstract Views: 830  Total PDF Downloads: 975

Published
Dec 1, 1988
How to Cite
MILLER, John. Evolution or Revolution? Conflict in the High Court. QUT Law Review, [S.l.], v. 4, p. 197-200, dec. 1988. ISSN 2201-7275. Available at: <https://lr.law.qut.edu.au/article/view/302>. Date accessed: 24 feb. 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.5204/qutlr.v4i0.302.
Since 2015-12-04
Abstract Views
1329
PDF Views
1482
Until 2015-12-04:
Abstract Views
547
PDF Views
869