Please find below Holman Webb Schedule of Non-Economic Loss under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) for 2014/2015.

Welcome to the first edition of the Holman Webb Insurance Law Bulletin.

This edition of the Bulletin highlights cases on legal professional privilege, bullying, workers compensation, aviation, liability and medical malpractice. We also discuss the recent High Court decision in respect of section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act

Despite what some might call ‘hysteria’ that prevailed at the time of the introduction of the anti-bullying laws and the expectation of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) that it may receive some 3,500 bullying related applications per month the reality is that far fewer complaints of bullying have been received by the Commission and it has not stopped employees resorting to other avenues of redress such as workers compensation and adverse action. These other avenues are likely to be more attractive as a potential financial remedy is available.

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).