A defendant seeking to rely on a defence under s 151Z of the "Workers Compensation Act 1987" bears the onus of establishing liability on the part of the employer.

Insurers operating across different States need to consider the different methodologies for calculating future losses.

When determining whether to invoke the provisions of s 111, parties must look at the material which is to be relied on.

The plaintiffs, Senior Constable Sheehan and Senior Constable Wicks, attended to the rescue of passengers at the train derailment at Waterfall in NSW on 31 January 2003. They both witnessed dead and severely maimed victims of the crash.

The Victorian Court of Appeal was asked to interpret an Industrial Special Risks insurance policy. The court considered whether the insurer was liable for consequential loss in the absence of any physical damage to property.

When matters are referred to MAS, insurers must include the central issue(s) in dispute and all evidence in support.

The New South Wales Supreme Court handed down its decision in "Halpin & Ors v Lumley General Insurance Ltd" [2009] NSWSC 644 on 10 July 2009.

The grounds for successfully challenging a CARS Assessment on the basis of jurisdictional error are extremely limited.

When alleging contributory negligence, based upon the failure to wear a seatbelt, the onus is on the Defendant to establish that a seatbelt was not worn. Where only one party has obtained an expert’s report on an issue, the Court is not obliged to accept that expert’s opinion.

The six hour per week "intensity requirement" contained in s 15(3)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (the CLA) is a continuing one. A plaintiff can only recover damages for gratuitous care for periods where it can be established that the services were provided (or are to be provided) for at least six hours per week.

Even if a plaintiff is restricted from suing his/her employer for common law damages, in assessing the contribution between an employer and any other tortfeasor, a Court is still required to undertake the exercise prescribed in s 151Z(2) of the Workers Compensation Act, 1987 ("Act") and calculate the notional liability of the employer.

This case highlights the importance of implementing and following disciplinary procedures that provide sufficient notice to the worker, permit the worker time in which to respond to the allegations made against him or her, and that are appropriate in the circumstances. Failure to do so may result in an employer's disciplinary actions being considered unreasonable and the employer may subsequently be found liable to pay compensation if that unreasonable disciplinary action results in adverse

The principles relating to defects in recent cases of Allianz Australia and Zurich Australian Insurance remain good law.

Whereas most insurance policies exclude liability arising under contract, insurers can positively benefit where an insured has limited or excluded its liability under contract. This usually arises where the insured's contract has a limitation or exclusion of liability clause in the insured's favour.

The role contemplated by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (MACA) for the Proper Officer is a procedural role and not an administrative or jurisdictional gateway through which the parties are required to pass.

Plaintiff's claim for refusal of extension of time dismissed.

Absence of prior accidents and complaints is only one factor when determining breach of duty of care.

The term 'Reasonably fit' is not limited to types of work which have previously been undertaken by the insured claimant.

An analysis of McCarthy v Patrick Stevedores No 1 Pty Limited (2011) NSWCA 311.

This appears to finally settle the issue about whether the six hour threshold in s128 MACA and s15B CLA is a continuous one. The court also considers economic loss in the context of the legal retirement age. Overall, this is an important decision which will be well received by liability and CTP underwriters.