Practice and Procedures - Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 ss 39 and 57

In Bermingham v Priest [2002] QSC 057 jones J considered the position of persons seeking to claim damages where the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 applies prior to its amendment by the Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Act 2000, and where proceedings are brought close to expiration of the statutory limitation period.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - obligation to disclose

In Turpin v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, S5216 of 2001), Mullins J, 17.10.2001) the plaintiff applied for a declaration that the respondent disclose pursuant to s47 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 copies of three statements referred to in a loss assessor's investigation report as "attached". The issue involved determination of whether the statements must be disclosed under s48(2) even though protected by legal professional privilege. The Court applied the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in James v Workcover Queensland.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - whether vehicle in question a vehicle "for which registration is required"

In Gideona v Nominal Defendant [2005] QCA 261, the Queensland Court of Appeal reconsidered the question of what is the material time for determining whether registration of a motor vehicle is required. The Court declined to follow the decision in Kelly v Alford [1988] 1 Qd R 404; deciding that the material time was the time when the accident occurred.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - whether obligation to co-operate may authorise order requiring commencement of proceedings by minor prior to expiration of limitation period

In Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v McPaul; Council of the City of Gold Coast v McPaul [2005] QSC 278 the applicant insurer sought an order requiring a claimant who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident some years earlier when he was five years old to commence a proceeding to determine the question of the applicant's liability to him. The applicant's interest in seeking the order was to avoid the prejudice which could follow from further delay, particularly delay until the respondent became obliged to commence proceedings to avoid a limitations bar.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - reasonable excuse for delay in giving notice under s37

The decisions in Perdis v The Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 555, Miller v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 558 and Piper v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 557 were handed down contemporaneously by the Queensland Court of Appeal on December 15 2003. They consider important issues as to the construction of key provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - compulsory conferences and offers to settle

In Lindsay v Aumaali [2004] QDC 028 the Court considered whether it could, in effect, postpone the requirement for a compulsory conference under s51A of the Moror Accident insurance Act 1994 (Qld) or the exchange of final offers under s51C of the Act until after the start of proceedings.

Caveats - Limited extensions effectively unlimited

The decision of Young J in McCosker v Lovitt (1995) 12 BCL 146 paces an interpretation upon s 74J of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) likely to surprise the unwary respondent to proceedings in New South Wales involving an application for an order to extend a caveat. Further, the similarity in critical respects between s74J and the legislation relating to lapse and extension of caveats in some jurisdictions when contrasted with other lapse provisions suggests that a court order extending a caveat for a specified period only may have very different consequences in different jurisdictions.

The caveat in Queensland : getting it off!

This article critically analyses the provisions by which a caveat against dealings may be cleared from a land title in Queensland, namely ss 126, 127 and 128 of the Land Title Act 1994(Qld). It includes a comparison of the current provisions with the pre-existing law and provides a comprehensive guide as to the circumstances in which, and the manner by which, the current provisions may be utilised to clear caveats from land titles in Queensland.

The Workcover Queensland Act: exploring injured workers payout options : Part 1

The article provides an overview of the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Workcover Queensland Act 1996 (Access to damages), and of the matters which, consequent on these provisions, practitioners must evaluate when advising an injured worker contemplating the commencement of a common law action for damages.

The Workcover Queensland Act 1996 : new procedures for common law claims [Part 2]

This article explains the new pre-court procedures and additional procedures designed to foster settlement of claims introduced by the Workcover Queensland Act 1996, and the implication of the new provisions for practitioners.

Compensation for logdment of caveat without reasonable cause

This article examines s130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) in detail, and includes an analysis of authorities which have interpreted comparable provisions in other Australian jurisdictions and in New Zealand. Its purpose is to provide a comprehensive guide as to the circumstances in which the court may now be expected to award compensation in respect of the lodgment or continuance of a caveat in Queensland. Finally, the author considers whether the changes which have been embodied in s130 may now be regarded as providing adequate protection for persons who suffer damage as a result of the lodgment or continuance of a caveat which cannot ultimately be sustained.

Limitation of actions - Workcover Queensland Act 1996 s 308(2)

In Narayan v S-Pak Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 373 the court concluded that proceedings to which the Workcover (Queensland) Act 1996 applies must be commenced within 60 days after the compulsory conference required by s308(2) of the Act and there is no power in the court to extend the time for compliance.

Workcover Queensland Act 1996 - award of damages for future care not precluded by s315

In Karanfilov v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd interpreted provisions of the Workcover Queensland Act 1996 as it applied to an injury occurring before 1 July 2001, i.e. prior to amendments made by the Workcover Queensland Act 2001. The decision involved the construction, in particular, of sections 312 and 315 of the Act

Corporate governance and securities class actions

This study investigates the governance attributes of firms that have been subject to securities class actions (SCAs). There has been a recent sizable increase in the number of firms subject to SCAs in Australia. We examine a sample of firms that have been subject to SCAs due to disclosure breaches and match the firms by industry and size to a control sample. First, we examine the compliance culture of the SCA firms via the frequency of Australian Securities Exchange (ASX)queries of the firm and find that the frequency of ASX queries is positively associated with the occurrence of a SCA. Secondly, we provide evidence that SCA firms exhibit weaker levels of corporate governance than the matched control sample. In addition, we contribute to the understanding of firms subject to SCAs and their corporate governance attributes. Our results suggest the presence of a nomination committee may be associated with higher agency costs and that the influence of CEO duality may reduce the effectiveness of a nomination committee.

Gratuitous services - Civil Liability Act 2003 s59

The article considers the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Kritz v King [2006] QCA 351, which examined for the first time s59 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) in relation to claims for damages for gratuitous services.