Insights Categories: Insurance

Privacy Awareness Week 2024 | Understanding transparency, accountability and security

Privacy Awareness Week (PAW) 2024 is an annual campaign led by the Australian privacy regulator, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). PAW seeks to promote and raise awareness of the importance of protecting personal information. The focus of this year’s PAW campaign is on privacy and technology; specifically the principles of transparency, accountability, […]

The case against ChatGPT: Warnings against an AI-generated testimony

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly rising across the legal profession. While there are benefits in saving time and costs, the downside is that AI could adversely impact legal proceedings. In this Insight we explore the potential impacts of AI in the trial process and in the gathering of case law research. We […]

Case Note | Insurer remedies for false and misleading statements

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Yu [2024] NSWSC 31 When assessing the seriousness and effect of a claimant’s injury, self-reported symptoms form an integral basis of any expert medical opinion and an insurer’s evaluation of the claim. But what happens when a claimant knowingly exaggerates their symptoms and disabilities? Section 118 of the Motor Accident […]

Case Note | Gravel poses an ‘obvious risk’- Mind Your Step!

Fisher v Shire of Denmark [2024] WADC 1 Key takeaways Visitors to public recreational areas are expected to exercise appropriate and reasonable care for their own safety A defendant, as an occupier, is able to rely on s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) (CLA) as a defence to any ‘obvious risks’ Failure […]

Case Note | An Interlocutory Odyssey of Non-Compliance – Dankers v Volunteer Maritime Rescue NSW [2023] ACTSC 395

Dankers v Volunteer Maritime Rescue NSW [2023] ACTSC 395 The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has dismissed an application from a plaintiff seeking a defence to be struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiff for ‘systematic’ and ‘continuous’ non-compliance with Court orders, while providing a scathing judgment on the non-compliance. Background The […]

Case Note | Barking up the wrong tree – County Court of Victoria finds dog attack not sufficiently connected with Insured’s business

Victorian WorkCover Authority v A.T.S. Towing Service Pty Ltd (ACN 054 744 204) & Ors [2023] VCC 2010 Background Aaron Butler (the plaintiff) sued Linkback (VIC) Pty Ltd (the Insured), ATS Towing Service (ATS) and Mr Steven Mavro, for injuries sustained in a dog attack on 4 April 2016. The attack occurred on a property […]

Case Note | First in, not necessarily best dressed? Victorian Court of Appeal allows multiple Medical Panel determinations, setting aside the Rosata decision

Citywide Service Solutions Pty Ltd v Rosata; Kabbout v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2023] VSCA 281 (21 November 2023) Background Luigi Rosata and Samih Kabbout issued separate court proceedings for injuries sustained in unrelated slip and fall incidents. In Victoria, a claimant who suffers injuries, which are not caused by a workplace or transport accident, may […]

Case Note | When to Play the Blame Game: Allegations of Contributory Negligence in the ACT – Wilson v Australian Capital Territory [2023] ACTSC 287

Wilson v Australian Capital Territory [2023] ACTSC 287 The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has dismissed an application by the plaintiff to strike out aspects of the Territory’s defence, pleading contributory negligence in circumstances where a breach of duty of care had previously been admitted with no reference to contributory negligence during pre-litigation. […]

Case Note | Persuasive evidence of prejudice – a must when resisting an extension of time application to issue proceedings

Bull v Ararat Abattoirs Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] VCC 1903 The Victorian County Court recently dismissed an application made by an injured worker to issue proceedings out of time. In the eyes of the Court, the combination of an 18 year delay following the accrual of the cause of action, and ‘clear prejudice’ to […]

Case Note | An error in method alone is not a ‘shaw thing’ on review

Shaw v Insurance Australia Group Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2023] NSWSC 1273 Introduction In this case, Justice Rothman of the Supreme Court, has identified what is necessary for the President of the Commission (or their delegate) to be satisfied when considering whether a material error has occurred, permitting a review of a medical assessment under […]

Case Note | Procedural fairness requires decision makers to ensure those affected by their decisions are fully aware of relevant distinctions

Amos v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2023] NSWSC 1193 Introduction When deliberating a question or matter which will inform a Review Panel’s decision, to what extent must the Claimant be aware of, and propositioned about, the issue at hand? In Amos v AAI Limited t/as GIO the Supreme Court clarified this duty in circumstances where […]

1 2 3 9