The Court recently delivered judgment in a cross-claim for contribution made by a surgeon against a private hospital.

This statutory guideline 06/09 provides guidance to applicants on what constitutes a substantially different development.

A shareholders agreement provides documentation of principles agreed on by the shareholders and owners of a business.

Article explores recent case about assault in the workplace & highlights the importance of having a reliable witness at trial.

An assault at an on-site tavern in a worker's two week shift arose out of, or in the course of the employee's employment.

An employer who offered a five-day week role with less remuneration had responded reasonably to the employee's request.

The labour hire employer was in fact fulfilling a contractual obligation to remove the employee from the worksite.

Drafters of outer-limit contracts should refer to the principles discussed in this case when drafting these contracts.

The FWC found that the employee was unfairly dismissed, when the employer misinterpreted the exit as an intent to resign.

The level of care available to the patient may have been less than that regarded as adequate for patients not in custody.

This decision emphasises the requirement that the staff member must be afforded natural justice and procedural fairness.

Employers must enquire whether the injured employee could perform the job if reasonable adjustments were made.

An earlier recognition of deterioration and transfer for appropriate care could have improved his chances of survival.

Contracts and subcontracts need to be reviewed and amended where necessary to provide for the implementation of the act.

The first Category 1 conviction has been finalised since the introduction of the model Work Health and Safety Act.

The Plaintiff (worker) failed to establish that the incident occurred and that the employer breached its duty of care.

The case affirms that a duty to take reasonable care does not apply in relation to a workplace investigation of a worker.

The lack of a "work–wages bargain" with respect to the Uber operations, meant that this Uber driver was not an employee.

The court required that a staff member, if subject of an investigation, be given natural justice and procedural fairness.

Employees with psychological impairments are not protected from termination because of performance or misconduct issues.