Market Intelligence

A recent Personal Injury Commission decision examines the evidentiary requirements for establishing consequential injuries in workers compensation claims, highlighting how inconsistent reporting and contemporaneous medical records can undermine a worker's case for causal connection between accepted and alleged injuries.

Queensland debt claims follow specific monetary thresholds across different courts, from QCAT's $25,000 limit to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over larger amounts. Understanding which court has proper jurisdiction, along with the procedural requirements and cost implications of each venue, is essential for effective debt recovery. Strategic court selection can significantly impact both the recovery process and the ability to claim legal costs.

Defamatory imputations are the damaging meanings a publication conveys about a person, formulated by reading the whole publication as an ordinary reasonable recipient would. In Queensland, these imputations must be particularised in the concerns notice and adequately identified in the pleading. This article explains how defamatory imputations are distilled from publications, how ordinary implications differ from true innuendo...

The Queensland Court of Appeal has clarified when public authorities can rely on statutory protection in negligence claims, ruling that a cyclist who collided with an inadequately marked barricade can recover damages. The decision examines whether common law negligence claims fall within the scope of section 36 of the Civil Liability Act and establishes practical guidance for determining when a public authority's conduct falls below the demanding "Wednesbury unreasonableness" threshold.

Jurisdiction clauses determine where disputes will be resolved and can significantly impact litigation costs, speed, and outcomes. This guide provides practical guidance on drafting effective jurisdiction...

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal recently overturned a District Court decision that had set aside a defence subpoena, finding that material sought from NSW Police had an obvious legitimate forensic purpose. This landmark ruling clarifies the standards for when accused persons can compel production of evidence and highlights ongoing tensions between defence rights and privacy protections in criminal proceedings.