Your search for ‘McCabes’ returned 182 results

Recent decision provides useful example of how liability decisions are determined in claims for damages under common law.

PIC Member reviewed evidence relevant for economic loss and determined that the claim was lacking in substance.

The decision in Bridgefoot adds to the collection of somewhat conflicting Review Panel decisions on this issue.

A claimant who suffers mental harm may claim both damages & statutory benefits, provided they meet certain requirements.

In recent case claimant met her duty under s2.30(2)MAI Act, as she acted reasonably & promptly despite not recording the at-fault vehicle's details.

The decision considered proportionate liability in the context of proved contraventions of various statutory provisions.

A shoulder injury from treatment was linked to the motor accident as a non-threshold injury, but higher court clarity is needed.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has introduced the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026, which would create a statutory right for employees to work from home at least two days per week, where it is reasonable to do so.

In recent case the PIC Review Panel ruled the accident materially caused the need for spinal surgery, which was reasonable & necessary.

Discusses recent insurance case where claimant's accident was caused by a medical episode.

Case study of how a Merit Reviewer will evaluate evidence in order to assess whether a claimant has discharged the onus on them to establish that they are an earner.

S54 Personal Injury Commission Act provides that PIC proceedings may be dismissed if they are frivolous & vexatious & otherwise misconceived. Recent case example.

Recent decision is important for both insurers & claimants.

Case shows behavioural outcome does not in itself constitute a recognisable psychological or psychiatric illness.

The test of causation in involves both medical and factual questions. Recent personal injury case discussed.

Recent personal injury decision highlights a potential legislative anomaly.

Recent decision makes it clear that the section 6.24 obligation to co-operate with the Insurer is mandatory.