Click through to view a recording of Holman Webb's Insurance Group's first webinar of the year: 2022 - A Year in Review.  Presented by Partner and National Insurance Group Leader John Van de Poll on Thursday 2 March 2023, this webinar examined a range of significant cases from 2022.

Every so often, a case comes up that reminds us of an often forgotten undertaking that solicitors owe the court: the “Harman” undertaking.  

The Harman undertaking concerns documents or information that the court compels third parties to produce.  It operates to prevent any of the parties to litigation from using documents obtained in the course of that litigation for the purpose of other unrelated proceedings, without the leave of the court.

Generally, the court will look for special circumstances explaining why a document should be released for use in other proceedings.  Even when special circumstances are established, the court still has discretion regarding whether to authorise the release of the information. 

Join Holman Webb's Insurance Group for our first webinar of the year: 2022 - A Year in Review.

Presented by Partner and National Insurance Group Leader John Van de Poll and taking place on Thursday 2 March 2023, this webinar will examine a range of significant cases from 2022.

Dennis Denuto famously said, “it’s the Constitution, it’s Mabo, it’s justice, it’s law, it’s the vibe and aah no that’s it, it’s the vibe”. 

The Constitution establishes the composition of the Australian Parliament and outlines how the federal and state Parliaments share power.  It recognises some individual rights (such as freedom of religion) and implies others (such as freedom of speech). 

On its face, it has nothing whatsoever to do with motor accidents. 

Yet for a small but significant class of people, the Constitution has a fundamental impact on how motor accident claims are handled.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Searle v McGregor [2022] NSWCA 213 has taken an important step in clarifying matters for this particular group of people.

In August 2021, Holman Webb Lawyers reported that the New South Wales Government was considering introducing ‘Decennial Liability’ insurance (inherent defect insurance) to provide up to 10 years of cover to apartment owners for the cost of rectifying defects that threaten the structural integrity of the building.

In a 25 October 2022 media release, the minister for fair trading, Victor Dominello has now announced that the government has accepted the application of Resilience Insurance to offer the insurance.

The minister’s view is that “Decennial liability gives power to the purchasers and body corporates, who will no longer need to prove liability and will only have to demonstrate the damage for assessment.” 

The policy will provide cover for up to 10 years and would cover critical parts of the building’s common property, including the building’s structure, fire safety systems and water proofing.

The Decennial liability cover, in conjunction with the cover under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020, now means that apartment owners have up to 10 years to either make a claim under the policy, or make a claim against the building practitioner for damage to the building caused by defective building works or design.

This article discusses the 31 March 2022 Supreme Court of Queensland decision in the matter of Re A [2022] QSC 159.  This decision has confirmed when court authorisation is required for the treatment of a minor who wants the treatment.  

On 19 May 2022, the NSW Parliament passed the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2022 which will allow eligible persons access to voluntary assisted dying services from 28 November 2023.  This will effectively give those persons control over the timing of their death.

The Act has been designed to prioritise personal autonomy, and to provide those in the end stages of life with greater levels of support and medical attention (including palliative care) for the purpose of minimising suffering.

Under the Act, voluntary assisted dying is not considered suicide, or an attempt by a person to cause serious physical harm upon him or herself for the purpose of the Mental Health Act 2007.

This article highlights the 7 July 2022 decision of the Supreme Court of NSW in Parkes v Mt Owen Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] NSWSC 909, which affirms the principle that vicarious liability is not dependent on contractual arrangements, but rather on a question of fact.

This article discusses the 18 February 2022 decision in Dhupar v Lee [2022] NSWCA 15, which illustrates that damages are available for economic loss arising from an injury suffered by a mother as the result of giving birth.

This case note discusses the 14 April 2022 decision in Pridgeon v Medical Council of New South Wales [2022] NSWCA 60.

This particular matter arises from extraordinary circumstances that may never again be seen in quite the same way. Nevertheless, the case has broad application due to its interpretation of the scope of the “public interest” aspect of s.150 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), and its proper use.

The Practitioner in this matter, Dr Pridgeon, is a general practitioner who formerly worked in Grafton, located in northern New South Wales.  On 29 October 2018, the NSW Medical Council suspended his registration under section 150. 

The Practitioner sought reviews of the decision from the Council, but the suspension was affirmed. He then appealed to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal.

The Practitioner appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal.