Some of these differences include Australia-specific nuances involving: (1) what torts are recognised, (2) the steps to establish liability, and (3) calculations for awards of damages.
[1] Over the years, differences of application have emerged in Australia's tests for causation, duty of care, calculation of damages, amongst other areas.
[2] Specific differences include the 'salient features' framework used to determine a duty of care for negligence,[3] and the lack of an intent element for the tort of trespass.
A prominent historical example of this is the 1897 Workmen's Compensation legislation, which was enacted in response a perceived failure of the common law to address risks of harm to workers during industrialisation.
From the early 1980s legislative intervention attempted to reduce the high volume of litigation involving motor vehicle and industrial accidents.
Parallel to the rise of Thatcherism in the United Kingdom, in all Australian states common law torts were significantly modified.
Speedy "no fault" compensation was made available to workers and victims of motor vehicle accidents in Tasmania, Victoria and the Northern Territory.
[9] Since 2002 there has been an acceleration of legislative change, driven by a perceived crisis in the price and availability of insurance, which was largely blamed on the law of negligence.
In ABC v Lenah Games Meats in 2001, the High Court left open the possibility of the tort being recognised in future.
The decision of Lange v ABC is an example of a case where Australia's constitutional free speech protections were assessed in the context of a defamation proceeding.