Case note on Richards v Cornford [2010] NSWCA 99 (NSW Court of Appeal) on issue of District Court jurisdictional limits . . .

The Principal Claims Assessor currently holds the view that there is no distinction between offers made under s 82(1) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (the Act) and offers not made under s 82(1).

Injury caused by working on a defective vehicle.

Obiter comments could allow plaintiff to select which insurer is liable to indemnify in respect of "divisible" injuries.

Court of Appeal intervenes and reduces amount of damages awarded.

Judicial consideration of section 63(3) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act in Meeuwissen v Boden & Motor Accidents Authority NSW confirms "Material" and "Error" are mutually dependant terms.

Where a party gives an indemnity inconsistent with proportionate liability, that party will be liable for any damages.

The NSW Court of Appeal handed down its decision in JA & BM Bowden & Son Pty Ltd v Doughty on 20 April 2009.

An injury from the negligent use and operation of a forklift is an "injury", not the result of an unsafe system of work.

A Review Panel constituted under s 63 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 is required to give adequate reasons for its decision under s 61(9).

It is now clear that the LTCSS is responsible for all treatment and care needs of a participant in the scheme.

A party to a CARS Assessment does not have an automatic right to cross-examine a witness.

The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the owener/occupier of a leisure centre should have foreseen that a 16 year old girl would assault another patron.

To be effective, an offer of compromise must be exclusive of costs, but that does not have to be stated expressly.

A discussion on the nature of assessing shoulder impairments resulting from the Devic v NRMA Insurance Limited case.

Discussion on recent Queensland Court Decision on contributory negligence

A motor mechanic's exposure to asbestos brake linings was held to be sufficient to cause mesothelioma notwithstanding epidemiological studies.

Skulander-v-WilloughbyCityCouncil 2007] NSWCA 116: The fact that an accident would not have occurred but for a plaintiff’s inattention, while relevant to breach of duty, generally will not of itself negative a duty of care.

In this Court of Appeal decision the plaintiff failed to overturn the trial judge's finding that the defendant was not negligent after the plaintiff fell on steps at a shopping centre.

The test of an explanation for the delay to make a late insurance claim remains - was the delay was "justified"?. .