Your search for ‘Curwoods Lawyers’ returned 432 results

Thresholds differ between NSW and Queensland legislation.

The defendant carries the onus of establishing causation if claiming contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff or a reduction in damages based on the negligence of the plaintiff's employer under s 151Z Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WCA). The defendant must lead evidence, in some cases expert evidence, of the reasonable practicability of alternative safety measures contended by it to have been available to the plaintiff and/or employer, unless they were a matter of common sense. In or

United Rail Group Services Limited ("United") entered into a contract whereby it would design and build new rolling stock for Rail Corporation New South Wales ("Railcorp").

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 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.

Overturning the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal, the majority of the High Court disqualified a judge of the Dust Diseases Tribunal from hearing a case involving British American Tobacco based on an interlocutory ruling delivered in a previous matter.

An offer of compromise in NSW must conform to Rule 20.26 of the UCPR and must be exclusive of costs to be valid.

Once a claimant has established total incapacity, the onus shifts to the insurer to prove a residual earning capacity.

In considering claims for negligence, the Court must make specific findings in relation to the precautions which a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have taken, having regard to the matters specified in s 5B(2) of the Civil Liability Act 2002.

A Case Note on Bader v Jelic [2011] NSWCA 255

The decision confirms the obligation of a principal contractor to provide a reasonable level of safety for sub-contractors entering onto a building site.

Allianz Australia Insurance v Serria Girgis clarifies the status of Medical Assessment Service (MAS) certificates.

Plaintiff had an opportunity to identify the offending vehicle, so may not rely on s34 Motor Accidents Compensation Act.

The risk of injury to the plaintiff who dived into water from a pylon located on a wharf was an "obvious risk" within the meaning of s 5F(1) of the Civil Liability Act and there was no duty to warn of that risk.

The occupier of a car park owes a duty of care to avoid any foreseeable risk of injury, such as an oil spillage.

The duty owed to the plaintiff, whether he was an employee or an independent contractor, was substantially the same.

The Full Federal Court has confirmed the Wayne Tank principle, which denies indemnity for a loss arising from both insured and excluded events.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Amaca’s argument that they had sufficiently warned the Plaintiff of the dangers of asbestos products.