Insurance
Return to PublicationsThe Court of Appeal recently heard an Appeal against the Supreme Court’s judicial review of a Medical Appeals Panel decision. The Appeal turned on the interpretation of the phrase “permanent impairment” contained in Section 65 and 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (“1987 Act”) and Section 322(1) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) (“1998 Act”).
The Queensland District Court recently determined that an employer was liable in negligence for injuries resulting from a physical altercation between two of its employees.
Colwell v Top Cut Foods Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 119
The Presidential Division of the Workers Compensation Commission recently
heard an Appeal by Inderjit Mahal, the Appellant, against the first instance
decision of an Arbitrator. That Appeal primarily concerned the interpretation
of a ‘police officer’ in the context of Schedule 6 Part 19H Clause 25 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
(“1987 Act”).
Mahal v The State of New South Wales (No 3) [2018] NSWWCCPD 30
The Court of Appeal recently heard an Appeal against a trial decision pertaining to a personal injury claim against Bunnings. The Court of Appeal discussed the principles of negligence described by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) in respect of what a reasonable person is obliged to do.
Bunnings Group Ltd v Giudice [2018] NSWCA 144
The Supreme Court of NSW recently determined liability relating to a personal injury claim by a worker in the course of his employment, but where the injury was caused by the negligence of an employee of another entity working in an adjoining premises.
Wharekawa v AEA Constructions Pty Ltd; Building Partners Pty Ltd v AEA Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 684
Section 151D of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (“1987 Act”) provides a three year limitation period for commencing a claim for work injury damages, which commences from the date of injury. In Gower v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 132, the NSW Court of Appeal considered an Appeal to extend that period by approximately nine and a half years. Though the Appeal was ultimately rejected, the Court’s reasoning indicates a willingness to extend the limitation period in certain circumstances.
It is well established that an employer owes a non-delegable duty of care to its employees to protect them from harm. However, the District Court of NSW recently propounded that in determining whether an employer has breached its duty, it is necessary to also consider the positive responsibilities cast on the injured worker.
This matter involved an application by the Plaintiff, Mr Caffrey (“Caffrey”), to strike out certain parts of the defence filed by the first Defendant, AAI Limited (“AAI”). Accordingly, the second Defendant, RACQ Insurance Limited, had no involvement in this application.
CAFFREY V AAI LIMITED & ANOR [2017] QSC 339
The Western Australia District Court recently heard an action in negligence against a driver who struck and killed a pedestrian. The Court’s decision reiterated the well established common law principles of negligence as well as provided valuable insight into the operation of the Vincents Chartered Accountants and Luntz tables in respect of calculating damages in personal injury claims.
Rowe v Rose [2018] WADC (21 March 2018)
In 2015, the Workers Compensation Commission determined in State of New South Wales v Stockwell [2015] NSWWCCPD 9 (“Stockwell”) that an injured worker’s entitlement to Section 60 medical expenses does not theoretically cease in the event that they permanently move abroad.
Rankin
Ellison Lawyers recently defended the Insurer of the Secretary, Department of
Education (“Respondent”) in an action brought by Mr Vaughan (“Appellant”) in
the Workers Compensation Commission. Upon losing his claim, the Appellant
appealed the Arbitrator’s first instance decision.
Vaughan v Secretary, Department of
Education [2018] NSWWCCPD (10 January 2018)
Section
59A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
(‘1987 Act’) provides that an injured worker is not entitled to compensation in
respect of any treatment, service or assistance that is given or provided after
the compensation period has elapsed. However, there are a number of exceptions
to that rule. Importantly for the purpose of this case note, the rule does not
apply to the provision of “artificial aids”.
Pacific National v Baldacchino [2018]
NSWWCCPD 12 (28 March 2018)
This matter arose out of a helicopter crash that resulted in the death of three people. Legal action was commenced by an array of litigants, including the dependants of two of the three deceased persons. Further, a number of additional claims and cross-claims were made by the respective Defendants to the initial proceedings.
A win on an interlocutory issue for Rankin Ellison Lawyers. We acted for the Respondent in the above Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal. On behalf of our client, on or about 22 September 2015 we served a Notice to Admit facts stating: ‘On a date prior to 20 December 2010 [Taree Truck Centre] was engaged by [Kneeward] to inspect, service, maintain and repair (the truck) as necessary and Taree carried out regular inspections, servicing and repair of the vehicle’.
Taree Truck Centre Pty Ltd v Kneeward Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 16 (15 February 2018)
In this matter, the Plaintiff, Jerrod Crim (“Plaintiff”), sought leave from the District Court to commence work injury damages proceedings against the Defendant, Vodafone Hutchinson Australia Pty Ltd (“Defendant”) after the expiration of the 3 year limitation period prescribed by Section 151D(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (“Act”).
Crim v Vodafone Hutchinson Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 404
The Deceased, John Hemmes, died on 1 March 2015 aged 83. The Plaintiff, Edward Cameron, was born in 1990 following an extra marital affair between his mother and the Deceased. The Deceased never acknowledged the Plaintiff as his child, despite confirmation through DNA testing.
Estate Hemmes; Cameron v Mead [2018] NSWSC 85
The President of the Workers Compensation Commission recently overturned a finding that a bull rider was a deemed worker engaged by the Australian Bushman’s Campdraft and Rodeo Association Ltd (ABCRA) and the Camden Show Society Inc (CSS) for the purposes of workers compensation.
Australian Bushman’s Campdraft and Rodeo Association Ltd v Gajkowski [2017] NSWWCCPD 54 & The Camden Show Society Inc v Gajkowski [2017] NSWWCCPD 55
The Plaintiff, Steven George Villanti, commenced separate legal action against two entities that he alleged were liable for work injuries that he had sustained. The separate proceedings were joined and heard concurrently in the Supreme Court of NSW. Both the first Defendant, Coles, and the second Defendant, Allstaff, filed cross claims against one another. Their respective claims concerned various aspects of the law including civil liability legislation, motor vehicle accident legislation, and workers compensation legislation.
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the decision of the Commission, who had dismissed an appeal brought by the Appellant (Tudor Capital Australia, “Tudor”). Tudor had originally appealed against the decision of the Arbitrator, who found in favour of the Respondent (Ms Christensen) in respect of a claim for compensation for her late husband’s death under Sections 9 and 25 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.