Category Archive: Liability/Injury

CFMEU says thousands of Australian buildings are clad in non-conforming cladding

The CFMEU has made explosive comments at a recent hearing of the senate inquiry into non-conforming building products. In his testimony earlier this month, Travis Wacey of the CFMEU alleged that thousands of Australian buildings may be clad in non-conforming cladding, which may pose a fire risk. The contentious use of cladding, which is alleged …

Continue reading »

Senate Inquiry into ‘non-confirming’ building products is wrapping up

On 23 June 2015, the Senate commenced a wide-ranging an inquiry into the use of ‘non-conforming’ building products (being products and materials that do not meet required standards). The inquiry was launched following a 2014 fire in a Victorian apartment complex involving the use of aluminium composite panelling. The due date for reporting has been …

Continue reading »

The Victorian Building Authority fires up for further audits

Following the Lacrosse fire in Melbourne’s Docklands in late 2014, the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) conducted an audit of non-compliant wall cladding systems of high rise buildings in inner city Melbourne. By way of background, the Lacrosse building was clad in aluminium composite panelling, and it is alleged that the panelling (with a combustible core) …

Continue reading »

To cap or not to cap? Tassie finally joins the party

Late last year Tasmania passed changes to its capped liability legislation, finally bringing it into line with the mainland, more than 10 years after the legislation was first introduced in the apple isle. The legislation allows professional groups to register schemes, by which their members can, by statute ‘cap’ or limit their professional liability, to …

Continue reading »

Finding dirt in the cloud?

A recent Supreme Court decision has ‘opened the door’ to litigants seeking discovery of supposedly ‘deleted’ electronic material in the Cloud. The decision concerned a dispute about discovery in a defamation proceeding. It all turned on seeking access to text messages which had been deleted from the plaintiff’s i-Phone. The plaintiff said his i-Phone had …

Continue reading »

Qld Court confirms position on vicarious liability

On 29 November 2016, Judge Dorney of the Queensland District Court handed down his decision in House v Anglo Coal (Callide Management) Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] QDC 303. The plaintiff, Glynn House, was injured when a tipper truck he was driving collided with the rear of another truck on a mine haul road. The …

Continue reading »

High Court of Australia unanimously decides against granting time extension to an abuse victim in a case of extraordinary delay

In Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC [2016] HCA 37, the High Court of Australia has unanimously decided that a victim of child sex abuse in the 1960s should not have been granted an extension of time to issue proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia in 2008. This decision relates to South Australian …

Continue reading »

A slip up – shopping centre liable for slip and fall on wet tiles

In Raad v KTP Holdings Pty Ltd as Trustee for VM & KTP Nguyen Family Trust [2016] NSW 2016 888 the Supreme Court of NSW held the Defendant, an occupier of the Busby Shopping Village, was liable for injuries and damage suffered by the Plaintiff – notwithstanding he was injured when running on wet tiles. …

Continue reading »

Insurance Review May 2016

Welcome to Insurance Review May 2016, DLA Piper’s publication dedicated to the insurance industry. In this edition we report on developments across the insurance industry, including the impact of the AEC and other regulatory developments. We also report on the latest cases in many classes of business, including D&O, cyber, privacy, fintech, construction, medical indemnity, …

Continue reading »

No breach of duty found for plaintiff’s inexplicable work injury

The recent NSW Court of Appeal decision in Small v K&R Fabrications has upheld the trial decision that a worker’s evidence was implausible and therefore there was no breach of duty. The plaintiff was a subcontractor for K&R Fabrications who was undertaking maintenance work at Bluescope Steel’s Port Kembla site. The plaintiff was engaged to replace three …

Continue reading »

Older posts «