Your search for ‘Moray & Agnew’ returned 262 results

The applicant commenced employment as a casual storeperson. The applicant injured his back at work in May 2009 and aggravated the injury in February 2010. The respondent formed the view that the applicant had been deliberately untruthful in his representation of capacity for work including to treating doctors, and that as a result, he obtained compensation to which he was not entitled.

Fair Work Australia has upheld Dairy Farmers’ dismissal of seven employees who were found to be trafficking inappropriate emails in the workplace in breach of company policy.

The new national personal properties security scheme is due to commence in October 2011 and will have widespread impact on the way businesses record and conduct their commercial transactions. The reform promises to merge more than 40 separate Australian wide security registers into a uniform and functionally consistent national registration system.

In Nau v Kemp & Associates [2010] NSWCA164, the NSW Court of Appeal had to deal with the difficulties created with multiple claims and tortfeasors and whether settlement of some of the claims prejudiced the right to continue with the remainder of the claims as against other tortfeasors.

In this decision handed down last month, the High Court held that the licensee of a restaurant was not liable for injuries to its patrons arising from the criminal conduct of a third party, in circumstances in which there was no action the licensee could have taken which would, on the balance of probabilities, have prevented that conduct.

In this case the NSW Court of Appeal had to deal with the interplay between the provision of gratuitous domestic assistance and the claimed need for assistance on a commercial basis into the future. Of interest, the provision of past gratuitous assistance may not immediately convert to damages for the cost of commercial services post dating the trial.

The High Court has found that (pursuant to s8 of The Criminal Code (WA)) a participant in a joint illegal enterprise can be owed a duty of care if, prior to the accident, they withdrew from the illegal enterprise. The fact that a plaintiff was involved in a joint illegal enterprise does not automatically mean that no duty of care arises. The existence of a duty of care is dependent upon on the relevant legislation that governs the illegal acts.

The plaintiff was a 17 year old boy who, in the company of friends, had been swinging from an improvised rope swing attached to the bough of a tree overhanging the Fitzroy River at a recreational area in Rockhampton, known as the Ski Gardens. On the plaintiff’s final swing he dived head first into the water, striking his head on the river bed and breaking his neck, rendering him a quadriplegic.

The NSW Supreme Court held that the accountant was not liable for the investment losses suffered by its client.

A discussion of the JSM Management Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd case.

Ms Falls was an Avon sales manager who alegedly sustained a mental injury arising from bullying and harassment by her supervisor.

On 3 March 2010 the High Court of Australia delivered a very important decision relevant to causation in lung cancer cases. The decision has broader application to other types of injury in which the precise pathogenesis of the illness is, as a matter of medical science, uncertain and where there is more than one potentially causative element.

On 15 April 2008, the applicant was employed as a fish filleter by the respondent, a small business with less than 15 staff. He was terminated on the basis of redundancy, while on holidays in January 2010.

Discusses Incoterms, what they are, do and the rules relating to them.

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia has found that a man who worked for an electricity company, and its predecessor organisations, for over 37 years was an independent contractor and not an employee.

Social media has created a dimension to managing employees, whether at work or out of hours.

Fair Work Australia has dismissed a claim made by an employee over an offensive Facebook comment.