Skip to content
Cases & Resources

You can’t unring a bell but you can un-know a fact

Murgolo v AAI Ltd t/as AAMI [2019] NSWCA 295 In 2012 Mr Murgolo was a sub-contractor working on a building site at Miranda Public School. On 19 January 2012, Mr Murgolo was injured when two workers were allegedly negligent in failing to secure an acrow prop, which fell and caused an injury to Mr Murgolo’s…

Double insurance + other insurance clause

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to Policy Number B105809GCOM0430 [2019] NSWCA 271 3. The approach to the question raised in the present case was set out by Payne JA in Lambert Leasing Inc v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (2016) 93 NSWLR 166; [2016] NSWCA 254 at [178], namely, that each policy…

S 318 Workplace Injury Management Act – “materially different”: particulars of negligence and foreseeability

Sohailee v City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1452 22 The purpose of s 318 of the Workplace Injury Act must be to ensure that claimants and employers properly participate in the pre-filing process required by the Act; that is, the claimant is required to put the defendant on notice of the particulars…

Administrative law: what a medical panel knows

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – claim under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) following motor accident – assessment by medical review panel of degree of permanent impairment – application for judicial review – whether error of law on the face of the record – whether jurisdictional error – no error of law on the face of the…

A collection and application of the principles governing s. 50D of the Limitation Act, 1969

In the present case the plaintiff was injured by a collision between a road train and a bull which had not been contained on the property to which it belonged. The plaintiff believed, prior to 15 April 2014, that the reason the bull was on the road was that the second defendant had left the gate open or that it had come open. The evidence reveals that the plaintiff understood that the second defendant had admitted as much to the police and when interviewed by the ABC. His belief, which is contained in a statutory declaration made by him in support of his motor accident claim, is sufficient to establish that he knew this to be the case for the purposes of s 50D of the Act.

Reopening of entered orders

[54] Rule 36.16(3A) was introduced following the change to the procedure for the entering of orders whereby orders will be entered by the court itself on its computerised record. The rule provides a limited opportunity to ameliorate the principle that subject to only limited qualifications an order that finally disposes of proceedings, once entered, cannot…

Offers of compromise with terms not reflected in final orders

[32] The Offer of Compromise however had some 10 additional terms, examples of which are as follows: “2. The defendant’s motor vehicle third party insurer is authorised to deduct and/or pay from the judgment sum in paragraph 1 the amount of any advance payments or interim payments made for or on behalf of the plaintiff.…

The meaning and effect of granting liberty to apply

[20] Nor do I consider that, as the applicant argued, the effect of the grant of liberty to apply was to obviate the need for the applicant to file a notice of motion in accordance with r 36.16. Rather, it contemplated the possibility of an application for variation being made in accordance with the UCPR,…

Brexit explained

Prorogation must be distinguished from the dissolution of Parliament. The dissolution of Parliament brings the current Parliament to an end. Members of the House of Commons cease to be Members of Parliament. A general election is then held to elect a new House of Commons. The Government remains in office but there are conventional constraints…

Administrative law: obligation to give reasons

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of decision of Medical Review Panel – decision favourable to claimant with regard to assessment of whole person impairment – whether Panel failed adequately to engage with question of whether a particular injury was caused by a motor vehicle accident – whether the Panel failed to engage with…

Legal professional privilege: dominant versus secondary purpose

DOUGLAS v MORGAN [2019] SASCFC 76 Legal professional privilege 41 Legal professional privilege “is a rule of substantive law which may be availed of by a person to resist the giving of information or the production of documents which would reveal communications between a client and his or her lawyer made for the dominant purpose…

Appeals – orders not reasons

11. In relation to the appellant’s principal point, that he wishes to challenge the “finding” of the court below and the statutory construction underpinning it, it is axiomatic that parties are entitled to appeal from orders made and not reasons given: Driclad Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1968] HCA 91; (1968) 121 CLR 45 at 64; [1968] HCA…

Search

About Me

I was admitted to the bar in 1991.  I took silk in 2009.  Before that I was a solicitor and before that a paralegal.

I try to do work in any area I am offered, but I will not appear or work without an instructing solicitor.

Categories

Tags

Social Media

Subscribe to the weekly newsletter

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.