The task of the court in drawing an inference as to the cause of an injury is to assess whether an inference is available and more probable than other possibilities.

Court considers circumstances giving rise to an incident for the purposes of s 3 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999

In a claim under a P. I. policy arising from construction work, it is necessary to identify whether the cause of the loss was negligence in the mandating of the technique for the performance of the work (a P. I. risk) or negligence in the manner in which that work technique was performed (a construction risk).

The quantum of the indemnity a worker's employer, or other person liable to pay damages to a worker in respect of an injury, is entitled to recover from a third party is not reduced by virtue of the operation of s 66(2)(a) of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld).

On 25 October 2007 John Orcher (plaintiff) was injured in an assault which occurred outside the licensed premises of the first defendant (Bowcliff). Bowcliff cross claimed against its security contractor, Australian Corporate Protection Pty Ltd (ACP), which in turn cross claimed against a security subcontractor, DSSS Cousins Pty Ltd (DSSS).

This case was consistent with other approaches in respect of an employer's duty of care to its employees and familes.

The NSW Court of Appeal handed down its decision in “Kurnell Passenger & Transport Services Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council” on 20 March 2009.

Jandson Pty Limited v Welsh [2008] NSWCA 317: The majority of the NSW Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings in favour of the plaintiff on the basis that the absence of visual cues to the change in levels in a display house constituted a not insignificant risk of injury.

When a plaintiff is aware of a right to make a claim and has retained solicitors, the late claim must be made promptly.

An inexperienced or unlicensed driver still has a duty of care in controlling their vehicle.

Claims Assessors appear to have some immunity against providing detailed reasons to support the assessments of damages.

A summary of QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd [2012] NSWSC 377.

This was a claim for contribution by Lloyds against CGU Insurance relying on the principles of double insurance that failed because Lloyds did not establish that CGU had a common or co-ordinate liability in respect of the indemnity paid by Lloyds to its insured.

The parties to a pure recovery action under s 151Z(1)(d) of the "Workers Compensation Act 1987" have no right to compel the worker to attend an independent medical examination.

Where the Insurer rejects an explanation for delay and does not “accept liability under the claim” the Insurer is arguably not bound by the result of a General Assessment irrespective of the outcome of the Special Assessment of the late claim dispute.

The Supreme Court held that the claims assessor fell into jurisdictional error by not considering the issue of procedural fairness when exercising his discretion to refuse to send the matter back to MAS for further assessment pursuant to s 62(1)(b) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.

The Supreme Court of NSW handed down its decision in Dogon v Redmond & Ors on 16 November 2010, when Hulme J delivered an ex tempore judgment. His Honour dismissed an application by the claimant to set aside a decision by the Proper Officer to refer a permanent impairment dispute to the MAS Review Panel.

The Court confirms that a s81 Notice cannot be amended whilst a matter is within the CARS process, but discretionary exemptions will still be available in limited circumstances.

When the reasons for the assumptions are not reasonably obvious, an insurer may have grounds for administrative review.

The claimant was injured in an accident on 23 June 2005 wherein the claimant was struck by an unidentified vehicle while crossing the road. The major issue at the trial was whether the accident caused or aggravated a pre-existing injury to the claimant's right knee.