Your search for ‘Moray & Agnew’ returned 262 results

The court recognised legal professional privilege as an important common law right, to be abrogated only by legislation.

The Victorian Supreme Court has recently revisited the complexities of double insurance, deciding that the time at which the existence of double insurance is to be considered is whether or not a common liability existed at the time of the relevant occurrence.

In New South Wales a worker must establish employment was a ‘substantial contributing factor’ to the injury.

The insured was entitled to recover defence costs pursuant to a costs extension clause in the insurance policy.

The NSW Supreme Court upheld an insurer's denial of an insurance broker's claim for indemnity for defence costs giving a relatively expansive construction to the relevant policy exclusion clause.

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.

The NSW Court of Appeal has found that placing a ‘Water Over Road’ sign some 900 metres from the water hazard was not an unreasonable act by the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW (RTA), an authority with special statutory power to erect warning signs, nor could it be said to have been the cause of a motor vehicle accident which killed two men and seriously injured another two.

Defendants are often called upon to consider whether expert evidence is required to defend a claim. When a plaintiff does not serve expert evidence, there is a temptation for a defendant to decline to serve expert evidence. Why take the risk that your report will prove the plaintiff's case?

The decision highlights the importance of proper investigations, obtaining expert evidence and proofing witnesses early.

The plaintiff fell on a council footpath on 24 December 2005 and suffered a significant injury to his knee. He sued the Council for damages and was awarded a significant sum in the District Court. The defendant’s apeal required the NSW Court of Appeal to consider, among other things, the construction of section 15B of the Civil Lability Act 2002 (CLA).

In this recent judgment, Master Harper of the ACT Supreme Court found the plaintiff to be under a disability in accordance with s30 of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) (‘the Act’), suspending the limitation period for the duration of that disability. His Honour, in coming to this conclusion, held that the word ‘disability’ in s30 was not restricted to legal disability.

This recent High Court decision centred on the issue of silence or non-disclosure as misleading and deceptive conduct for the purposes of s52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The decision reinforces that, unsurprisingly, the precise factual background to a transaction will be of critical importance to the viability of a s52 claim.

In this case the New South Wales Court of Appeal has found, in the context of an application to join QBE to the proceeding, that section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act (‘ICA’) applied to claims to enforce the statutory charge on insurance moneys under section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) (‘Reform Act’) and suggested that it would also apply to claims against insurers by third parties, under sections 48 and 51 of the ICA. QBE successfully resisted the applicati

Most employers assume that if they engage the services of a person through a labour hire company, the person is not their employee.

Discusses the Plunkett v Silverbrook case and its resulting workers compensation decision.

The Court of Appeal recently upheld a judgment allowing damages for fund management for an injured worker who sued his employer for work injury damages.

The matter of <i>Woolworths Limited v Kathryn Strong & Anor</i> provides a useful tool to unravel the test that a plaintiff must overcome, when attempting to establish causation in matters brought under the <i>Civil Liability Act</i> (‘the Act’). In particular, when can it be found that a negligent act was not ‘a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm’ (see section 5D(1)(a) of the Act).