The Industrial Commission of NSW has served notice on large organisations that they defend unfair dismissal cases purely "on the papers" at their peril.

In this case, the Court discussed the underlying principles that must be proved to establish any case in defamation.

The Court of Appeal significantly reduced the plaintiff's damages awarded at trial, in particular reducing the award for non-economic loss on the basis of a reduction from 35% to 20% of a most extreme case, notwithstanding the fact that the infant plaintiff received significant scarring from a dog bite and resulting psychiatric disabilities.

A principal contractor does not owe its independent contractor a non-delegable duty of care. If a principal engages a competent contractor the principal is not subject to an ongoing duty of care with respect to the safety of the work methods used by the contractor. The duty owed is one to alleviate the risk of injury by co-ordinating and directing activities. The duty is to use reasonable care to avoid unnecessary risks of injury. It is not a duty to avoid any risk of injury.

If a solicitor provides cheque directions to a bank without a client's authority, he breaches the warranty of authority.

Where the contribution of the negligent acts of 2 or more defendants caused damage, each one should be held liable.

An American company has partially succeeded in evading its (apparent) contractual obligation to mediate and submit to litigation in Australia, by "getting in first", i.e. filing an application for declaratory relief in the US District Court.

The effect misrepresentation of previous license cancellations and driving under the influence of alcohol will have on indemnity under a policy of insurance. See Sagacious Legal Pty Limited v Wesfarmers General Insurance Limited (No 4) [2010] FCA 482. Federal Court of Australia.

It is not sufficient for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1969, s 50D(1)(b) that a person merely knows the facts necessary to establish the fault of the defendant. The person must also know that the defendant is, as a matter of law, liable to pay damages.

In determining whether leave is granted pursuant to section 6(4) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (Act) a Court will consider whether :- (a) There is an arguable case against the Insured; (b) There is an arguable case that the policy responds to; (c) There is a real possibility that if judgment is obtained the Insured would not be able to meet it.

Discusses a case which considers "best evidence" provisions.

The quality and clarity of reasons given by an administrative law maker continue to be informed by the High Court's decision in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] 185 CLR 259 ("MIA v Liang") where a Court should not be concerned with the "looseness in the language" invoked by an administrative decision maker.

The objective of MAS is to determine whether a claimant's injuries arising from an accident exceed a threshold which would entitle them to damages for non-economic loss. Their determinations have a significant impact to the rights of the claimant and insurer. It is important that such determinations are correct in accordance with the law.

The courts have considered that the happening of the event is to be the moment when the cause of action is completed.

The High Court unanimously held that Fortescue Metals and Mr Forrest did not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct.

The decision confirms that where the disease is of gradual onset, there may be scope for recovery from former employers.

The case illustrates the insurer receiving administrative relief when alleging failure to provide adequate reasons.

In order to join an insurer to proceedings directly, an applicant needs to have an arguable case, supported by evidence.

City of Sydney Council was liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when she was struck by a large falling tree branch whilst sitting in Hyde Park.

An occupier of premises must take all reasonable steps to eliminate hazards, whereas a contractor will only be required to take reasonable action within the limits of its authority and instructions.