-
What do you know?
Pomare v Whyte [2019] NSWCA 317 On 18 April 2012 the appellant, Mr Kereopa Pomare, was travelling in a prime mover on the Silver City Highway west of Wentworth. The prime mover was travelling approximately 100 km per hour and…
-
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…
-
Double insurance + other insurance clause
in InsuranceAllianz 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…
-
S 318 Workplace Injury Management Act – “materially different”
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;…
-
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;…
-
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…
-
A collection and application of the principles governing s. 50D of the Limitation Act, 1969
in Time limitsIn 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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Administrative law: obligation to give reasons
in Recent casesADMINISTRATIVE 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…
-
Legal professional privilege: dominant versus secondary purpose
in EvidenceDOUGLAS 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…
-
Appeals – orders not reasons
in Appeal11. 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…
-
Intentional acts under the Civil Liability Act
Section 3B of the Civil Liability Act only excludes the operation of the Act where the conduct that is the subject of proceedings was intentional, and done with intent to cause injury; the Act is not excluded merely because the proceedings relate to…
-
Declaration: width
XL Insurance Co SE v BNY Trust Company of Australia Limited [2019] NSWCA 215 114 Courts will usually not make a declaration as to the liability of an insurer to indemnify an insured in circumstances where the liability of the…
-
Solicitors, fiduciary duties, retainers and contributory negligence
Rahme v Benjamin & Khoury Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 211 In relation to Question 1: By signing the costs agreements with B&K, Mrs Rahme agreed to pay B&K’s past and future fees for it acting on her behalf as solicitor…
-
Allowing an appeal by consent
in AppealIn this regard, as the Full Court held in Bradken Limited v Norcast S.AR.L [2013] FCAFC 123; (2013) 219 FCR 101at [2]: … the exercise of the power to allow an appeal by consent is dependent upon the identification, to the satisfaction of the…
-
Coventry v Insurance Australia Ltd T/as NRMA Insurance: proper officer/delegate
Coventry v Insurance Australia Ltd T/as NRMA Insurance [2019] NSWSC 1096 30. Authority binding on me establishes that a decision of a proper officer under the Act may be amenable to orders in the nature of the prerogative writs under…
-
Availability of cross claims in apportionable claims
Landpower Australia Pty Ltd v Penske Power Systems Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 161 Bell P: Further consideration 39. In Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd (2013) 247 CLR 613; [2013] HCA 10 at [16], French CJ,…