Your search for ‘Curwoods Lawyers’ returned 432 results

In the first Court of Appeal decision regarding the construction of ss 50C and 50D of the "Limitation Act" 1969, the Court had to determine when a cause of action was discoverable by the plaintiff for the purpose of determining when the limitation period began to run.

The exclusion of intentional torts from the operation of the Civil Liability Act 2002 extends to an employer's vicarious liability for the intentional torts of its employees.

A plaintiff succeeded in establishing liability for injuries sustained on a recreational park ride on the basis that the ride was not reasonably fit for its purpose. This was notwithstanding that a majority of the Court of Appeal found the defendant was not negligent.

The relevant consideration in duty of care is if the employer knew or ought to have known equipment provided was unsafe.

In the absence of specific legislative limitations, a MAS Review Panel has the power to make a decision based on the information before it and give weight to that information in accordance with clinical judgment. The plaintiff sought judicial relief pursuant to Section 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 of a decision made by the MAS Review Panel.

When determining liability on a claim, note the individual factual situations and if there is a breach of duty of care.

The occupier was not liable for the negligent failure of an independent contractor to adopt a safe system of work.

Decisions of a landlord and tenant-occupier's liability are determined with reference to specific circumstances.

A recent case considered whether a risk is "not insignificant".

The appeal was heard consecutively with that of Angel v Hawkesbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130 as in both matters the Defendant Councils raised a defence based upon s45 of the CLA.

Defendants should use expert evidence when relying on s 5O of the CLA in defence of a claim for professional negligence.

A recent case considered the duty of care owed by an occupier to employees of an independent contractor.

The High Court has narrowly allowed an employer’s appeal from a unanimous NSW Court of Appeal decision on breach of duty giving rise to psychiatric injury.

There are only limited circumstances where an appellate court will alter a primary judge's award for non-economic loss.

An Insurer loses the right to challenge a claim on the basis of delay where it fails to request an explanation for delay within 2 months of receiving the claim.

The High Court upheld the RTA's appeal in overturning the New South Wales Court of Appeal's judgment in relation to a 14 year old plaintiff who was rendered partially paraplegic when he dived off a bridge in Forster, New South Wales.

In determining the nature of the relationship between a party who engages another party to perform work and whether the relationship can be characterised as one of employer/employee or principal/independent contractor . . .