The Practice Note is intended to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of proceedings before the District Court. It applies to all matters in the General List in the Sydney, Gosford and Newcastle Registries. The Practice Note commenced on 7 September 2009.

A creditor agreed with the debtor to increase the principal of the loan, without the consent of the guarantors. The creditor argued that the guarantors were liable as principals, and that they had agreed that variations to the mortgage would not release the sureties.

When considering an Application for Review, the test is whether the Proper Officer has reasonable cause to suspect the medical assessment was incorrect in a material respect, having regard to the particulars set out in therein. It is not necessary for the Proper Officer to individually specify the documents he/she considered or to decide wether a particular conclusion is open or available on the material.

In an interlocutory application brought by the defendant seeking leave to file an amended defence, the Court considered whether a defendant needs to expressly plead s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 in its defence. This case provides a timely warning to defendants that if they seek to rely on a defence under s 5O then it must be expressly pleaded in their defence.

An insurer which intends to join the Nominal Defendant to proceedings must give notice of that intention within three months of receiving a claim form from the claimant, and must provide details of the allegations against the Nominal Defendant within two months thereafter.

Where direct proof is not available to sustain a claim in negligence it is sufficient if the circumstances appearing in evidence give rise to a reasonable and definite inference.

The failure of a MAS Assessor to include in his Reasons any reference to causation of a neck injury gives rise to a suspicion that the MAS Assessor failed to properly consider the question of causation.

The claims assessor did disclose the primary facts to justify the reasons for the buffer and its amount.

Certain reinsurance treaties covered D&O policies with a duration of up to three years. The cedant sought indemnity under the treaties for certain claims made and notified within three years of the inception of the policy, even though the term of the policy was seven years.

In cases where the circumstances of the accident are contested, considerable weight will be given to lay evidence.

Commonwealth Steel Company Ltd v Certain Underwriters At Lloyds Comprising Syndicate - Construing a commercial contract of insurance- can more than one policy of insurance respond to a mesothelioma claim?

The Court will not exercise the discretion conferred by s 61(1)(b) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 to order a further assessment of a medical dispute unless satisfied that the further assessment is likely to result in a different outcome on a matter of substance

A bailee does not have a duty to warn a bailor about the need to take out insurance when taking possession of goods.

The case confirms the application of issue estoppel in motor vehicle accident claims, when an earlier decision is made.

The Supreme Court determined that an employer was entitled to be indemnified pursuant to section 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for compensation paid by it in circumstances creating a liability in the worker's negligent treating doctor to pay damages in respect of the same injury.

A Review Panel has jurisdiction under s 63 to consider all aspects of the original assessment, not just the material error asserted by the Applicant.

No basis for operation of double insurance between employer and owner of vehicle where liability of employer not crystallised - Zurich Australia Insurance Ltd v GIO General Ltd

The failure of a party to call a witness does not necessarily give rise to an adverse inference being drawn in accordance with Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. An unfavourable inference is drawn only if evidence otherwise provides a basis on which that unfavourable inference can be drawn.

In order for a Council to fall outside the protection afforded by s 45 of the Civil Liability Act, a plaintiff must prove the Council had actual knowledge of the particular risk, the materialisation of which resulted in the harm.

An accident on private property did not occur on a "road" according to the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW).