S54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) may well be the bane of all insurers as it is really a double-edged sword. In essence, it prevents an Insurer from relying on a breach of a policy condition to deny a claim because the insured has committed a particular act, error or omission (after the policy is entered into) which did not cause or contribute to the loss. However, the insurer may instead, reduce the claim to the extent of the prejudice it has suffered.  If the act, error or omission caused or contributed to the loss, then the insurer can refuse to pay the claim.

The High Court has unanimously held that there is no implied term of mutual trust and confidence in Australian employment contracts.

In August 2013, a majority of a full court of the Federal Court found that all Australian employment contracts had an implied term of mutual trust and confidence.  Specifically, the Court held that an employer had breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, when it made an executive manager redundant for failure to consider redeployment opportunities in accordance with its policies. 

A recent SA District Court defamation case has raised some interesting OHS concerns (Tassone v Kirkham). Both Mr Tassone and Mr Kirkham were prison officers. The case concerned a work email that was purportedly sent by Mr Tassone to his workplace colleagues stating: “Hello people, just a note to say that I am homosexual and I am looking for like minded people to share time with.” 

Mr Kirkham, after making the admission that he actually sent the email, sought to retract this confession. He then argued that the email had been clearly communicated in jest and that there was no damage done as a consequence to Mr Tassone’s character or reputation.

Welcome to the August 2014 edition of the Holman Webb Lawyers Franchise Bulletin.

This year we have seen the delays and uncertainty continue to surround the introduction of the changes to the Franchising Code of Conduct including the new good faith obligation and monetary penalties for breaches. Click here to read more.

Mrs Paul underwent a scan to determine whether she had a berry aneurysm in 2003, which her radiologist, Dr Cooke failed to diagnose at the time. In 2006, Mrs Paul underwent a further scan in which the aneurysm was detected.

It is well-established that an individual’s consent is always required before treatment is rendered. In the absence of obtaining the individual’s consent, the treating practitioner may be held liable for trespass to person, assault or battery (1).

Two recent judgments of the Full Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court have resulted in awards of significant damages to employees in cases involving claims of sexual harassment, discrimination and adverse action (Richardson v Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd; Sagona v R & C Piccoli).

Intellectual property rights include patents, trade marks and copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) grants exclusive rights in the copyright owner, including the right to use, reproduce and publish works. Copyright exists in original works, such as computer programs.

APRA Ltd v Jain (1990) 26 FCR 53

University of NSW v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26

An Options Paper released by the Department of Social Services last month confirms the government’s intention to abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), returning some of the regulatory functions to the ATO and ASIC and supporting a self-reporting public accountability framework. The submission period for comments on the July Options Paper (1), closed on 20 August 2014.

The Australian Government announced on 5 August 2014 that it will  introduce a suite of counter-terrorism measures to provide security agencies the resources and legislative powers needed to combat terrorism, whether within Australia or carried out by Australians overseas.