Insurance
Return to PublicationsThe Plaintiff, Gary Edward Smith, suffered psychiatric injury as a consequence of a motor vehicle accident. Those injuries were subsequently aggravated as a consequence of the death of a family member. The Supreme Court of NSW recently handed down its Judgment in relation to the interpretation and application of Clause 1.36 of the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines.
Smith v Insurance Australia Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1606
Rankin Ellison recently ran a successful Appeal against the decision of an Arbitrator in the interests of the Appellant, ReIn (Manufacturing) Pty Ltd. That Appeal raised interesting points of law pertaining to the finding of fact and inferences which can be drawn from same.
The Court of Appeal has unanimously found in favour of a consumer who sustained injury as a consequence of his use of a defective ladder. Interestingly, the injured consumer was only awarded partial costs as a consequence of his initiating proceedings in the wrong court.
Bamber v Hartman Pacific Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 248
An injured worker’s Application for judicial review of a Medical Appeal Panel decision has been dismissed with an Order for costs. The Supreme Court rejected the Application in its entirety, finding (amongst other things) that it lacked merit.
Elsworthy v Forgacs Engineering Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1638
Rankin Ellison have successfully defended an Appeal by Jasbir Singh (“Appellant”) in the Presidential Division of the Workers Compensation Commission. The Commission has handed down judgment pertaining to the interpretation of Section 322A of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) (“1998 Act”).
Jasbir Singh v B & E Poultry Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] NSWWCCPD 52
The witness of a fatal motor vehicle accident recovered workers compensation benefits, compensation under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), and an award of damages under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). Parrish v Olympic Roadways Pty Ltd & Broome [2018] NSWDC 258 concerned the latter of those claims. His Honour Judge Levy’s judgment serves as an important reminder as to the legal rules pertaining to the onus and standard of proof in a civil action for damages.
An issue to be determined in respect of every workers compensation claims is whether the injured person is a ‘worker’ or ‘deemed worker’ in the context of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW). The Workers Compensation Commission recently decided an Appeal pertaining to that issue and in doing so advanced important legal principles as to the application of the relevant common law test for distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor.
Digby v Hyspec Construction & Roofing Pty Ltd [2018] NSWWCCPD 39
The 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)