The Department of Infrastructure and Transport’s Submission to the
Victorian Competition & Efficiency Commission
Inquiry into aspects of the Wrongs Act 1958
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Part 1: Response to Equity, Efficiency and Consistency Considerations for the Third Party Damage by
Aircraft Regime ................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.
Considerations......................................................................................................................................... 3
3.
Information Requested by the Commission and Conclusion .................................................................. 5
Part 2: Further Information on the Australian Framework for Third Party Damage by Aircraft ...................... 7
1.
The Current Commonwealth Liability and Insurance Framework for Aviation .................................... 7
2.
Third Part Damage Liability Framework in State Jurisdictions ............................................................. 8
3.
Current International Approaches ........................................................................................................... 9
4.
Changes to Third Party Damage Liability Frameworks Over the Years ................................................ 9
Referenced Materials ................................................................................................................................... 13
Executive Summary
The Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission’s (the Commission) ‘Inquiry into aspects of the
Wrongs Act 1958’ (the Inquiry), raises, amongst others, the question of whether it is appropriate to attach
strict liability to aircraft operators for third party damage by aircraft to people or property on the ground as
currently provided for under the Wrongs Act 1958 (‘the Wrongs Act’).
To assist the VCEC in its assessment, the Department has addressed each of the considerations proposed by
the VCEC to assess the strict liability regime.

Equity is addressed in consideration of national uniformity for both victims and aircraft
operators/owners.

Efficiency is addressed in consideration of the availability of insurance, cost of premiums, rationale
of a strict liability system compared to reliance on the common law, and the need for all parties
involved in air operations to manage risk appropriately.

Consistency is addressed in consideration of the similarity between Commonwealth, state and
international schemes and noting the impact of the tort law reforms.
The Department is happy to assist and provide further information to the Commission throughout the
Inquiry.
Part 1: Response to Equity, Efficiency and Consistency Considerations for the Third
Party Damage by Aircraft Regime
1. Introduction
1.1. To assist the Commission’s Inquiry, the Department provides a statement against each of the three
considerations that the Commission has proposed, outlined at page 17 of the Issues Paper, to assess
Victoria’s strict liability regime for third party damage by aircraft.1
1.2. To assist the Commission in its assessment, more detailed information is provided in Part 2 of the
submission outlining the current Commonwealth liability framework for third party damage by
aircraft, the current frameworks adopted by the states and the historical changes to Australia’s
approach to third party damage by aircraft.
2. Considerations
Equity considerations
2.1. The general equity considerations of the Commission are addressed here along with the specific
concern of the overall appropriateness to attach strict liability to the aircraft operator whilst
continuing to provide fair and prompt compensation for damage by aircraft.
Horizontal equity (equal treatment of equals, e.g. differing awards for the same injury)
2.2. The Commonwealth’s third party liability scheme for damage by aircraft is focused on having a
framework that apportions losses that can best balance providing victims with timely and sufficient
compensation, and ensuring aircraft operators can carry out their daily activities, with limited
concern for both parties of costly and onerous litigation.
2.3. The current Commonwealth and state regulation for damage by aircraft is broadly consistent in
regards to scope and limitations of liability exposure to aircraft operators/owners, suggesting that for
victims, similar awards would arise in the different jurisdictions for the same injury. More detail on
similarities and differences between Commonwealth and state jurisdictions is provided at
paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 in Part 2).
2.4. In respect to aircraft operators/owners, the Department notes, similar to the Commonwealth
framework, aircraft operators/owners can reduce their exposure to unlimited liability due to general
provisions of the Act that limits loss in circumstances of pure mental injury loss, allows the
application of the principle of contributory negligence and allows the right to seek contribution.
These provisions were clarified as part of the national 2002-2003 tort law reforms and comparable
provisions were recently introduced under the Damage by Aircraft Act (Cth) (‘the DBA Act’) (under
which the Commonwealth’s liability framework is established) in 2013 (see paragraphs 4.13 to 4.15
of Part 2).
Vertical equity (where injured persons are treated differently, e.g. compensation is based on
income)
2.5. The Department does not have any specific issues to raise in respect of vertical equity given this
issue goes to the overall Victorian civil liability framework, not just in respect to claimants of third
party damage by aircraft. The Department may provide further comment if there are any proposed
1
‘Inquiry into aspects of the Wrongs Act 1958’ (Issues Paper, Victorian Competition & Efficiency Commission, July 2013) 17.
amendments that affect the compensation available to victims/claimants for third party damage by
aircraft.
Efficiency considerations
2.6. The general efficiency considerations of the Commission are addressed here, along with the specific
concerns for ensuring those best placed to assume the risk of damage by aircraft to third parties have
the incentive to take sufficient safety precautions, the minimisation of compliance costs and impacts
of the regime on the aviation industry.
Price and availability of insurance and compliance costs
2.7. Operators’ and owners’ risk appetite has been managed within a strict liability framework that has
existed for nearly 50 years. Insurance for third party damage by aircraft is readily available in the
Australian market with approximately 90 per cent of aircraft in Australia covered for third party
damage and there continues to be a downward trend in aviation market insurance premiums.
2.8. Even the majority of smaller aircraft, such as those involved in recreational and sports aviation, hold
insurance because it is provided as part of mandatory memberships to Recreation Aviation
Administration Organisations, and is often a requirement by local government associations to carry
out activities on local government land.
2.9. During the Department’s 2009 Review of Carriers’ Liability and Insurance (the 2009 Review),
which included discussions on the merits of a liability scheme for third party damage by aircraft,
there was no evidence presented indicating that the current legislation was restraining aviation
activities or that it was leading to unsustainably high insurance premiums (see paragraphs 4.13 to
4.14 of Part 2).
Cost impacts on defendants of unmeritorious litigation and courts
2.10. A strict liability regime as opposed to reliance on general tort law can provide a rigid framework
for claimants and defendants to operate and negotiate within, which gives certainty for victims and
defendants and reduces courts costs.
2.11. Amendments to the DBA Act in 2012, which included a provision for contributory negligence,
were prompted by the outcome of ACQ Pty Limited v Cook; Aircair Moree Pty Limited v Cook
[2009] HCA 28 (see paragraphs 4.13 to 4.14 in Part 2). On appeal to NSW Supreme Court, it was
found in ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook [2008] NSWCA 161 that contributory negligence could not be
considered under the DBA Act. The defendants appealed to the High Court of Australia (HCA),
where it was not until August 2009, some nine years after the incident, where the NSW Supreme
Court’s decision was upheld by the HCA.2
Incentive to ensure appropriate risk mitigation
2.12. The Issues Paper raised the consideration that those placed to assume the risk of an accident have
the incentive to take efficient safety precautions. In the VCEC’s consideration, certain aspects of
the current Victorian regime should be noted:

2
The liability under the Act is strict and uncapped;
ACQ Pty Ltd v Michael Cook & Anor; Aircrar Moree Pty Ltd v Michael Cook & Anor ([2009] HCA 28)

The Victorian regime does not exclude other parties involved in aircraft operations (including
pilots, lessors, financiers, manufactures, avionics technicians, air tower controllers, to name a
few) from liability in the event of an accident:
o There is no provision under the Wrongs Act stating that a claim for damages under the
strict liability regime is the exclusive remedy. This means, a party seeking damages
could take action elsewhere and against someone other than the aircraft operator/owner;
o The aircraft operator/owner under the Wrongs Act can seek a contribution from another
party if they are liable in some way to the damage caused; and
o The aircraft operator/owner can transfer their risk to another party through an
indemnification as allowed under the Wrongs Act.
Consistency with other regimes
2.13. This concerns whether the current regime is consistent with the underlying objectives of the tort
law reform and with other state and territory regimes. It should also consider the consistency with
the Commonwealth scheme and other regimes outside of Australia.
Consistency with state, commonwealth and international jurisdictions
2.14. The current Victorian regime is broadly consistent with other state, territory and Commonwealth
regimes. When the DBA Act was introduced in 1999, an effort was made for national uniformity to
ensure consistency with the concept of a single national market for aviation services and equity for
Australian victims (see paragraphs 4.6 to 4.10 in Part 2).
2.15. The Department also understands that a strict and unlimited approach is consistent with Singapore,
New Zealand, UK and other EU state members (see paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 in Part 2).
Underlying objectives of the tort law reform in 2002/2003
2.16. There are not many instances of personal injury cases arising from damage by an aircraft and
therefore there has been limited objective assessment of the impact that the tort law reform has had
on the Victorian regime. However, the Department notes that issues with reduced availability of
insurance and cost of premiums for aviation have only come to be a concern following the collapse
of the war risk insurance market after September 11 (see paragraphs 4.11 to 4.12 of Part 2). Apart
from that, the tort law reform has provided better national consistency for aircraft operators/owners
in respect to their exposure of unlimited liability being able to be reduced by contributory
negligence, limits on the scope of claims that include mental injury and the right to seek a
contribution.
3. Information Requested by the Commission and Conclusion
3.1. The Commission has noted in the Issues Paper, the key concern for stakeholders is whether there is
sufficient justification for the strict liability regime.3 It should be noted, that in the 2009 Review,
little concern was raised with the current interaction between state and Commonwealth liability
frameworks for third party damage by aircraft, however, some stakeholders argued that strict and
unlimited liability Commonwealth scheme should not exist.
3
Ibid.
3.2. During consultation, there were no compelling justifications to repeal the strict unlimited liability
framework. Instead, amendments in 2012 were introduced to the scheme to better balance the
exposure of aircraft operators/owners to the unlimited liability and responsibility in providing
compensation to third party victims (see paragraphs 4.13 to 4.14 of Part 2).
Part 2: Further Information on the Australian Framework for Third Party Damage by
Aircraft
1. The Current Commonwealth Liability and Insurance Framework for Aviation
1.1. The liability and insurance framework for aircraft operating in Australia is regulated under the
Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (the CACL Act) and the DBA Act. Each state in
Australia has complementary legislation to cover flights beyond the scope of the Commonwealth’s
constitutional power.
1.2. Broadly, the CACL Act sets out strict and limited liability, compensation caps and mandatory
minimum insurance coverage for domestic and international aircraft in respect of death or injury to
passengers. It provides a national uniform scheme as state government legislation directly imports
the application of the CACL Act without amendment.
1.3. The DBA Act mandates strict and unlimited liability on the aircraft owner and operator where
damage occurs by an aircraft to third parties on the ground, underground or on water within the
Commonwealth’s scope of power including territories. Unlike the CACL Act, there are no
mandatory insurance requirements under the DBA Act; and the Act does not apply to state
operations. State government legislation, which mostly pre-dates the DBA Act, creates similar
liability frameworks which cover operations outside of the scope of the Commonwealth, such as
intra-state flights, however the state legislation is separate and stand-alone from the DBA Act.
Scope of the DBA Act
1.4. Specifically, the DBA Act places strict liability on the aircraft operator and owner (excluding
passive owners (lessors and financiers))4 where a person or property, in or under land or water
suffers personal injury, loss of life, material loss, damage or destruction caused by either the impact
by an aircraft in flight or something that has fallen from an aircraft in flight.5 The aircraft operator
and owner are jointly and severally liable in respect of the injury, loss, damage or destruction. 6
1.5. The legislation outlines circumstances where the liable party is not always the owner/operator. The
DBA Act takes into consideration the nature of the aviation market (such as wet lease and hire
arrangements) and the causes of aircraft accidents.
1.6. In addition to the operator and owner of the aircraft, two additional parties are potentially liable on a
jointly and severally basis – the person who authorised the use of the aircraft is liable in the place of
the operator if the operator did not have the exclusive right to use the aircraft for more than 14
days,7 and the person entitled to control the aircraft’s navigation is liable in the place of the operator
if the operator was using the aircraft without the authority of the person entitled to control its
navigation, (for example, because the person had stolen or hijacked it).8 However, where the person
who is entitled to control the navigation of the aircraft has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the
unauthorised use of the aircraft, he or she will not be liable.9
4
Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 (Cth) s10 (2A).
Ibid ss 10(1)(a)-(d).
6
Ibid ss 10(1)-(2).
7
Ibid s 11(2)(c).
8
Ibid s 11(2)(d).
9
Ibid 10(3).
5
1.7. The claim for damages, or liability, of the operator/owner can also be reduced under the DBA Act in
three explicit ways; by the principle of contributory negligence, exclusion of pure mental injury
claims and the defendant’s right to seek contribution, as explained:
1.7.1. Liability can be reduced by the principles of contributory negligence (the damages
recoverable form the defendant can be reduced by the victim’s share in responsibility for the
loss to a point that is just and equitable),10 although this is unlikely in the situation of third
party damage by aircraft.
1.7.2. Claims for compensation for mental injuries can only be made where the victim has also
suffered additional personal or property damage.11 This is intended to prevent additional
litigation by claimants who may have only witnessed an aircraft crash from afar. 12
1.7.3. Operators/owners can reduce their liability by seeking a contribution from other parties who
may have contributed to the damage suffered by the claimant (such as the defendant could
claim the manufacturer, avionic technicians etc. may have contributed to the cause of the
damage).13
2. Third Part Damage Liability Framework in State Jurisdictions
2.1. Each state in Australia has complementary legislation that covers flights beyond the scope of the
Commonwealth’s constitutional power. Similar to the Commonwealth, each state sets strict and
unlimited liability on the aircraft operator and owner. Of note, the three explicit ways in which
liability can be reduced for the operator/owner under the DBA Act (see paragraph for 1.6 more
detail) have, in most cases, been adopted under the statutory civil liability regimes of state
jurisdictions since the national 2002-2003 tort law reforms. Overall, the strict liability regimes in
state jurisdictions are broadly consistent with the Commonwealth framework.
Victoria,14 New South Wales,15 Tasmania,16 and Western Australia17
2.2. The legislation of all these states is in similar form to each other. Ordinary liability for trespass or
nuisance is excluded in a similar fashion to the South Australian legislation.
Queensland18
2.3. The Queensland legislation mirrors the DBA Act in respect of aircraft operator and owner liability,
however, there is no protection from liability for aircraft owners where there is a lease or hire
arrangement.
South Australia19
2.4. The South Australian legislation provides that, subject to certain qualifications, liability for aircraft
damage ‘is to be determined on the same principles’,20 as under the DBA Act, however, the main
10
Ibid s 11A(3).
Ibid s 10(1A).
12
Explanatory Memorandum, Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2012 3.
13
DBA Act ss 11A-B.
14
Wrongs Act 1958 (VIC).
15
Damage by Aircraft Act 1952 (NSW).
16
Damage by Aircraft Act 1963 (Tas).
17
Damage by Aircraft Act 1964 (WA).
18
Air Navigation Act 1964 (Qld) pt 3.
19
Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) div 3 pt 9.
11
differences is it does not apply to aircraft damage arising from certain aerial application operators,
and it excludes ordinary liability for trespass or nuisance.
3. Current International Approaches
3.1. Internationally, the common approach to liability frameworks for third party damage has been for
countries to put into effect their own frameworks as opposed to relying on international conventions
which have received little support. The Rome Convention 195221 stipulates operators are strictly
liable for damage by aircraft involved in international operations and establishes a capped
compensation scheme. Whilst the UAE is a signatory, Australia along with key international
aviation partners (EU, USA and Canada) are not.
3.2. Following the events of September 11, there was some impetus to improve international cooperation
which culminated in the finalisation of two new international conventions, the Unlawful
Interference Convention22 and the General Risks Convention23 (described below). However, these
conventions are not yet in force due to the low number of signatories and ratifications, noting
Australia is not a signatory to these Conventions.
3.3. Despite the lack of a multilateral agreement, on the face of it there is consistency and similarity
between the Commonwealth’s scheme and the regimes of Australia’s key international aviation
partners. Schemes similar to the Commonwealth’s third party damage by aircraft exist in New
Zealand (strict liability on the owner for property damage,24 personal injury covered by NZ’s
national universal no-fault accidental injury scheme), Singapore (strict liability on the owner or
hirer/lessor where hired for more than 14 days)25, and many EU member states (France, Germany,
Italy, Spain and the UK all have strict liability regimes on the owner/operator but with varying
limits)26. The United States has a system of unlimited fault based liability with mandatory
insurance.27
4. Changes to Third Party Damage Liability Frameworks Over the Years
The Rome Convention and Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958
4.1. Historically, a framework to determine liability for third party damage was important for the
expansion of the infant civil international aviation market to allay the concerns of landowners who
risked suffering damage caused from flights over their land and operators who were exposed to the
expensive risk of being sued in the event of causing damage.28 A framework was first developed
under The Rome Convention 1952 which established an international convention for a strict limited
liability and compensation framework for third party damage caused by international aviation
operations.
20
Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 61(3).
The Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface, opened for signature 7 October 1952,
310 UNTS 181 (entered into force 4 February 1958).
22
The Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft,
opened for signature 2 May 2009 (not yet in force).
23
The Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties, opened for signature 2 May 2009 (not yet in
force).
24
Civil Aviation Act (NZ) s 97.
25
Air Navigation Act 1966 (Singapore, cap 6, 1985 rev ev) s 9.
26
Steer Davis Gleave, ‘Mid-term evaluation of Regulation 785/2004 of insurance requirements of air carriers and aircraft
operators’ (Final Report, European Commission, July 2012) 23.
27
Ibid 30.
28
Explanatory Memorandum, Damage by Aircraft Bill1999 4.
21
4.2. In 1952, Australia became a signatory to The Rome Convention 1952 and enacted the Convention
under the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958 (Cth) (the CADBA Act). Of note, the scope
of the liability and compensation framework under the CADBA Act was expanded beyond the
scope of the The Rome Convention 1952 as it applied to Australian registered and “non-convention”
aircraft and the limitations on liability only applied to convention aircraft.29
4.3. Many of Australia’s significant international aviation partners, such as the US, UK and Japan, did
not ratify the Convention. However, the Convention at least provided guidance to countries in
establishing a domestic and international liability framework to support the expansion of the infant
aviation market. The key provisions in the Convention that were, and still are now, common to
many jurisdictions around the world, include strict liability and attaching it to operators and owners.
4.4. Around the time the Commonwealth introduced the CADBA Act, NSW, Victoria, Western
Australia and Tasmania introduced legislation similar to the CADBA Act to cover flights not caught
by the Commonwealth legislation. In QLD, SA and the territories, compensation was only available
through an action for negligence at common law.
4.5. However, there was no national uniformity for liability for damage by aircraft to third parties.
Between the regimes of the Commonwealth, states and territories there were differing burdens of
proof (e.g. strict liability or common law) as well as differing compensation limits between
international and domestic operations within the Commonwealth jurisdiction. International
operations varied further depending if the country of registration was a signatory to
The Rome Convention 1952.30
The Damage by Aircraft Act 1999
4.6. With the maturity of the international aviation market from the 1950s onwards, the focus for third
party damage regulations shifted from protecting the growth of the infant civil aviation market, to
one now concerned with ready and equal access to compensation for unsuspecting third party
victims in an environment where aviation activities occur on a daily basis over populated areas.31
4.7. During the 1990s there was impetus to address the inconsistences in Australia’s third party damage
liability framework after significant aircraft accidents helped realise the real and possible
inequitable consequences for victims under the current framework between different
Commonwealth operations and jurisdictions.32
Significant aircraft accidents included the
1992 El Al Flight 1862 in Amsterdam that crashed into residential apartments and killed 43 people
on the ground, and two other domestic crashes where six houses were damaged in one and five
members of the public were killed in another.33
4.8. The disparity between third party liability arrangements at a Federal and State level at that time
were deemed to be inconsistent with the concept of a single national market for aviation services
and inequitable for victims.34 Therefore, in 1999, Australia denounced The Rome Convention 1952,
repealed the CADBA Act and in its place introduced the DBA Act.
29
Ron Bartsch, Aviation Law in Australia (2nd ed.), 429.
Explanatory Memorandum, above n 29, 3.
31
Ibid 4.
32
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, The House of Representatives, 24 March 1999, 4164 (Mr Mark Vaile).
33
Ibid 4163.
34
Ibid.
30
4.9. The DBA Act established a uniform unlimited liability framework for both domestic operations and
international flights that fell within the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction. Consultation conducted prior
to the Act’s introduction found the impact on business, including small business, would be minimal
because most operators/owners already had insurance to cover third party damage.35 The DBA Act
was also broadly consistent with the legislation of other states at the time (NSW, WA, Tas, and Vic)
and shortly after the introduction of the DBA Act, similar strict liability frameworks were
introduced by SA in 2000 and by QLD in 2001.
4.10. Overall, the introduction of the DBA Act ensured that the Commonwealth legislation was broadly
consistent with the state jurisdictions. The new legislation was considered equitable and efficient in
improving national uniformity for public protection measures for third party victims and consistent
with the concept of a single national market for aviation services.36
Update to DBA Act after September 11
4.11. After the events of September 11, it was considered the DBA Act exposed passive owners
(financiers and lessors) to a liability that would threaten to reduce the availability of economical
aircraft finance to the Australian aviation sector.37 It was noted the strict liability coverage to
passive owners under the DBA Act was not common international practice, yet this had not been
raised as a concern during the initial introduction of the DBA Act as it was assumed all parties
could easily purchase insurance to cover such liabilities.38 In any event, the Australian Government
responded by exempting passive owners from the DBA Act.39
4.12. There was some impetus on the international stage after September 11 to improve upon
The Rome Convention 1952 and as a result the Unlawful Interference Convention (dealing with
liability and compensation for third damage arising from terrorist acts) and the General Risks
Convention (dealing with liability and compensation for third party damage arising from accidents)
were drafted.40 However, these Conventions have received little support, Australia is not a
signatory, and are yet to come into force.
2012 amendments – getting the balance right
4.13. As previously mentioned, in 2009, the Department conducted a Review of Carriers’ Liability and
Insurance which included discussion on the merits of continuing the strict unlimited liability regime
for third party damage. Under the assumption the framework would continue, the majority views
expressed by industry were for the need to better balance the unlimited liability exposure of aircraft
operators/owners and the responsibility to provide compensation, especially given the impact of the
decision in ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook [2008] NSWCA 161 (see paragraph 2.11 of Part 1).
4.14. This led to the following amendments under the Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and
Insurance) Act 2012 which took effect in March 2013:
35
Explanatory Memorandum, above n 29, 7.
Ibid 8.
37
Explanatory Memorandum, Insurance and Aviation Liability Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 10.
38
Ibid 6.
39
Insurance and Aviation Liability Legislation Amendment Act 2002 (Cth) s 5.
40
Australian Government, ‘Review of Carriers’ Liability and Insurance’ (Discussion Paper, Department of Infrastructure and
Transport, May 2009)
36
4.14.1. The introduction of ‘contributory negligence’ so that compensation payments paid by
operators/owners for third party damage may be reduced where the victim was partially
responsible for the damage;
4.14.2. Operators/owners (defendants) can now seek a contribution from other parties who may have
contributed to the third party damage suffered by the person brining the claim under the Act;
and
4.14.3. Preclusion of claimants from claiming compensation for mental injuries where the person has
not suffered additional personal or property damage.
4.15. With these amendments, the DBA Act now more closely aligns with the civil liability frameworks
of the state jurisdictions.
Referenced Materials
A Articles/Books/Reports
Bartsch, R Aviation Law in Australia (2004, 2ed.)
Inquiry into aspects of the Wrongs Act 1958’ (Issues Paper, Victorian Competition & Efficiency Commission, July
2013)
Steer Davis Gleave, ‘Mid-term evaluation of Regulation 785/2004 of insurance requirements of air carriers and
aircraft operators’ (Final Report, European Commission, July 2012)
Australian Government, ‘Review of Carriers’ Liability and Insurance’ (Discussion Paper, Department of
Infrastructure and Transport, May 2009)
B Cases
ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook [2008] NSWCA 161
ACQ Pty Ltd v Michael Cook & Anor; Aircair Moree Pty Ltd v Michael Cook & Anor ([2009] HCA 28)
C Legislation
Air Navigation Act 1964 (Qld)
Air Navigation Act 1966 (Singapore, cap 6, 1985 rev ev)
Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Act 2012 (Cth)
Civil Aviation Act (NZ)
Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958 (Cth)
Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA)
Damage by Aircraft Act 1952 (NSW)
Damage by Aircraft Act 1963 (Tas)
Damage by Aircraft Act 1964 (WA)
Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 (Cth)
Insurance and Aviation Liability Legislation Amendment Act 2002 (Cth)
Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic)
D Treaties
The Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface, opened for signature 7
October 1952, 310 UNTS 181 (entered into force 4 February 1958)
The Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference
Involving Aircraft, opened for signature 2 May 2009 (not yet in force)
The Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties, opened for signature 2 May
2009 (not yet in force).
E Other
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, The House of Representatives, 24 March 1999, 4163 (Mr Mark Vaile).
Explanatory Memorandum, Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2012
Explanatory Memorandum, Damage by Aircraft Bill1999
Explanatory Memorandum, Insurance and Aviation Liability Legislation Amendment Bill 2002