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.

Practice and procedure : Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s56

In Amos v Brisbane City Council [2005] QCA 433 the Queensland Court of Appeal was called upon to determine the scope of s56 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002. The decision makes it clear that the section does not provide a complete code governing awards of damages and does not deprive the court of power to award costs against a plaintiff who fails to succeed on liability.

Supreme Court Act 1995 s48 - Interest on judgment for damages for personal injuries

The case of Flynn v The Maryborough Sugar Factory Limited [2003] QDC 446 the plaintiff had been awarded damages for personal injuries and there was a charge on those damages under a Commonwealth statute, with a provision in the statute that damages could not be satisfied until the Commonwealth had been paid. The Court considered the point of considerable practical significance of whether interest accrued on the judgment under s48 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) before the defendant had obtained clearances under the Commonwealth legislation.

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.

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.

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.

Personal injuries sustained in the course of employment - claim against employer under Workcover Queensland Act 1996

In Devlin v South Mole Island Resort [2003] QSC 020 the Court concluded the applicant was entitled to pursue a concurrent claim he alleged he had against the respondent under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 in respect of injuries sustained in the course of employment, and also that the Workcover Queensland Act 1996 did not abolish the applicant's right to proceed against the respondent.

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

Solicitors who commence a proceeding without authority act at their peril

In Nominal Defendant v Kisse [2001] QDC 290 a person suffered personal injury caused by a motor vehicle in circumstances where there was a cause of action to which the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 applied. The person died before taking the steps required under Pt 4 of the Act and before commencing litigation to enforce that cause of action. The decision also involved a costs order against solicitors on an indemnity basis, providing a timely reminder to practitioners of the importance of ensuring they have proper authority before commencing any court proceedings.

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.

A sample review of Deeds of Company Arrangement under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act

An empirical review of the operation of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is timely given that Australia’s corporate rescue regime marked its 20 year anniversary in 2013. The research project culminating in this report was funded by the 2013 ARITA Terry Taylor Scholarship and entailed a review of a random sample of 72 executed DOCAs (and associated reports and returns) which were effectuated between 1 August 2012 and 31 July 2013. This sample review of DOCAs was undertaken with the intention of producing a ‘snapshot’ of current practices and trends pertaining to DOCAs – ie, average (or typical) rate of dividends paid, the outcomes or goals which DOCAs customarily achieve (eg, genuine company rescues, workouts, enhanced asset realisations or ‘quasi-liquidations’), the profile of the companies executing DOCAs and the average term/duration of DOCAs. The purpose and value of this sample review was to empirically assess the use and effectiveness of one important aspect of Part 5.3A and to further inform consideration and debate as to whether changes are warranted to Australia’s voluntary administration regime.

Geminin and Brahma act antagonistically to regulate EGFR–Ras–MAPK signaling in Drosophila

Geminin was identified in Xenopus as a dual function protein involved in the regulation of DNA replication and neural differentiation. In Xenopus, Geminin acts to antagonize the Brahma (Brm) chromatin-remodeling protein, Brg1, during neural differentiation. Here, we investigate the interaction of Geminin with the Brm complex during Drosophila development. We demonstrate that Drosophila Geminin (Gem) interacts antagonistically with the Brm–BAP complex during wing development. Moreover, we show in vivo during wing development and biochemically that Brm acts to promote EGFR–Ras–MAPK signaling, as indicated by its effects on pERK levels, while Gem opposes this. Furthermore, gem and brm alleles modulate the wing phenotype of a Raf gain-of-function mutant and the eye phenotype of a EGFR gain-of-function mutant. Western analysis revealed that Gem over-expression in a background compromised for Brm function reduces Mek (MAPKK/Sor) protein levels, consistent with the decrease in ERK activation observed. Taken together, our results show that Gem and Brm act antagonistically to modulate the EGFR–Ras–MAPK signaling pathway, by affecting Mek levels during Drosophila development.

The fresh start goal of the Bankruptcy Act : giving a temporary reprieve or facilitating debtor rehabilitation?

Providing debtors with the opportunity for a fresh start is popularly regarded as one of the main goals of bankruptcy legislation. However, there has been limited analysis of this goal. This article confirms that the fresh start is one of the main goals of the Australian Bankruptcy Act, and argues that this fresh start focuses on discharge of debt and does not explicitly address debtor rehabilitation. A review of the key goals could examine whether, and to what extent, rehabilitation should also be a focus of the fresh start in Australian bankruptcy law.