Bridgecorp appeal allowed
Insurance eBulletin - 20 December 2012
The New Zealand Court of Appeal today allowed the appeal in Steigrad v BFSL 2007 & Ors, overruling a decision of the New Zealand High Court that a statutory charge created on insurance monies under the New Zealand equivalent of s6 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) takes priority over all payments under the policy. Read full article...
Volume 1 - November 2012
In this edition of Pulse, we look at the recent decisions of Cugmeister v Maymac Foods Pty Ltd and Tuohey v Freemasons Hospital; we discuss recent Medical Panel developments, as well as recent developments in health law impacting the scope of a doctor's liability and a doctor's duty to follow up a patient. We also consider a recent decision where the Supreme Court refused a plaintiff’s application to extend time in a claim against a hospital. Read full article...
FOS remedies scrutinised
Insurance eBulletin - 25 October 2012
In this eBulletin, we look at a recent Supreme Court of Western Australia decision which confirmed that the Financial Ombudsman Service has very wide ranging powers when it comes to determining appropriate remedies in disputes between Australian Financial Services licensees and their clients. Read full article...
High Court to hear first proportionate liability appeal
Insurance eBulletin - 14 September 2012
The High Court will grapple with the intricacies of proportionate liability as early as November this year having recently granted Special Leave to appeal the decision of Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v VellaRead full article...
Financial Ombudsman Service Update - review of FOS decisions
Insurance eBulletin - 31 August 2012
The Victorian Court of Appeal has confirmed that decisions of the Financial Ombudsman Service are not subject to judicial review. In Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service Limited & Anor the Court of Appeal did not consider it necessary to make a decision about the applicatoin of the Datafin principle. The Court of Appeal's decision in relation to the contract point will further restrict the grounds upon which challenges may be made to FOS determinations.  It remains to be seen whether this case will provide a vehicle for the High Court to consider Datafin. Read full article...
No duty of care owed by builder and developer to Owners Corporation
Insurance eBulletin - 17 July 2012
The New South Wales Supreme Court recently held that a builder and developer of a resort-style residential complex did not owe a common law duty of care to the complex's Owners Corporation to prevent alleged defects in the common property. Instead, it found that the Owners Corporation had the benefit of statutory warranties implied by the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) against each defendant. Read full article...
Statutory defence for professionals
Insurance eBulletin - 29 June 2012
The Victorian Supreme Court has clarified the operation of s.59 Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) which provides that professionals won't be found negligent if they acted in accordance with peer professional opinion. Doubt existed as to whether this impacted upon the standard of care owed by a professional in a claim for damages or whether it operated as a defence. The Supreme Court determined that s.59 is a defence. Read full article...
Flood regulations introduced
Insurance eBulletin - 27 June 2012
As of 19 June 2014, the term ‘flood’ in certain domestic, small business and strata title contracts of insurance will have a standard definition courtesy of amendments to the Insurance Contracts Regulations 1985 introduced last week. In this eBulletin, we discsus these new regulations and their impact on insurers. Read full article...
Disentangling pre-existing injury
Insurance eBulletin - 15 May 2012
Where a plaintiff suffers a pre-existing condition, they need only prove that the injury caused by the defendant's negligence was a cause of their incapacity. The onus then shifts to the defendant to disentangle the pre and post negligence injuries in order for damages referable to the defendant's negligence to be assessed. Read full article...
The James Hardie decision - implications for directors and officers insurers
Insurance eBulletin - 14 May 2012
The High Court has ruled that seven former James Hardie directors and the company's general counsel breached the Corporations Act 2001, following the release of a misleading statement to the ASX about the company's asbestos compensation fund.  The finding has highlighted a trend towards holding company directors and officers accountable for the actions of a company, and confirmed that corporate counsel may be an "officer" within the meaning of the Act. Read full article...
Page 3 of 8First   Previous   1  2  [3]  4  5  6  7  8  Next   Last   

Find a publication


Work Area