The Court of Court of Appeal found that a landlord had no liability to a tenant who fell through the roof of residential premises.

The Court of Appeal in Western Australia considered the liability of suppliers of products containing asbestos to a handyman (in the case of Hannell) and a bystander (in the case of Moss).

A primary judge does not need to provide extensive reasons for preferring the evidence of one witness over another.

A look at Mungis (No 2) Pty Ltd v Still and its effect on contributory negligence.

In approaching the construction of an insurance policy, a court must determine the meaning the document would convey to a reasonable person with the background knowledge available to the contracting parties. The court must also have regard to the purpose and object of the transaction.

The High Court has provided a timely reminder that legislation is the first port of call when it comes to considering breach of duty and causation. The High Court's comments in respect of ss 5B and 5C of the Civil Liability Act 2002 are consistent with the NSW Court of Appeal's approach in recent decisions such as Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Refrigerated Roadways Pty Limited4 and Penrith Rugby League Club Limited t/as Cardiff Panthers v Elliot5 to the effect that in considering cla

A barrister was found liable to a personal injury plaintiff client (who had sustained injury performing community service whilst on parole) because he wrongly advised that the plaintiff's claim was not covered by the Workers Compensation Act.

A MAS Assessor is not required to assess a claimant's presentation with an eye to each and every criterion set out in the statutory guidelines in order to avoid falling into jurisdictional error

On 23 April 2004, Cameron Thomas (plaintiff), suffered serious head injuries including a fractured skull when he fell whilst descending from the top level of a bunk bed at the home of Mr and Mrs Shaw (defendants). The plaintiff did not sleep on the top bunk bed but had climbed up on it to talk to his friend, who was the defendants' son. The relevant bunk bed was determined to have a height from the top of the mattress to the floor of no more than 1.4 metres

The Court of Appeal of Appeal overturned the trial judge's verdict for the defendant in a case where the plaintiff was viciously assaulted by security guards in a laneway.

Employers are not liable in negligence for a failure to give instruction as to how to carry out an ordinary activity.

Professional indemnity insurance is construed with the object of providing indemnity for professional activities.

Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32A - Tribunal that makes a finding based on a question of fact without supporting evidence makes an appellable error of law. An appeal from a Tribunal finding, unsupported by evidence, is classified as an appeal "with respect to a matter of law" under s 67 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW).

The Nominal Defendant can recover from an uninsured owner any costs reasonably incurred in compromising the claim.

Where recovery proceedings are commenced under s 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, the plaintiff must prove that a defendant has in fact breached a duty of care to the original claimant in order for that claim to be successful.

Certiorari will not be issued by the courts as a form of relief for an error of fact (that is not jurisdictional). It is not an error of law for an Assessor to arrive at a conclusion of which there is evidence simply because that conclusion is inconsistent with another conclusion that was available.

A recent NSW case considered the issue of foreseeability of risk.

The Court of Appeal had to determine whether the correct process of reasoning was undertaken by the trial judge in respect of the trial judge's finding of the defendant's negligence where the plaintiff fell on slipway rails.

The duty of an occupier of licensed premises to take reasonable care for the safety of patrons depends on proof that they knew or ought to have known facts requiring intervention to protect patrons and that they failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard an injured person from a foreseeable risk of harm.

This case considered the duty of a licensed club to protect its patrons from the tortious or criminal conduct of fellow patrons and what is reasonably required to discharge that duty.