Duty of police and ambulance services : what happens when the plaintiff refuses treatment?

In a recent case the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the duty of care owed by ambulance and police officers, issues concerning breach and causation and the practical effect of the exclusion of the plaintiff's evidence.

Duty of care for mental harm suffered by rescuers

In Wicks v State Rail Authority NSW; Sheehan v State Rail Authority NSW [2010] HCA 22 (16 June 2010) the duty of care owed to rescuers, who were police officers, at a train derailment, was considered in conjunction with the interpretation of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002.

The extent of the insured’s duty of disclosure : a comparative analysis of the disclosure obligations of insured in Australia, Singapore and China

Pre-contractual material disclosure and representation from an insurance policy proposer is the most important element for insurers to make a decision on whether a proposer is insurable and what are the terms and conditions if the proposal by the proposer is able to be insured. The issue this thesis researches and investigates focus on the issues related to the pre-contractual non-disclosures and misrepresentations of an insured under the principle of utmost good faith, by operation of laws, can achieve with different results in different jurisdiction. A similar disputed claim involving material non-disclosed personal information or misrepresentation at the pre-contractual stage from an insured with respect to both general and life insurance policies settled by an insurer in Australia could be that the policy is set aside ab initio by the insurers in Singapore or China. The jurisdictions this thesis examines are • Australia; • Singapore; and • China including Hong Kong.

A duty of care

Mass production of PhD training compromises graduate quality. As PhD quality becomes more stratified, industry will increasingly turn to quality-branded institutions and programs when distinguishing among job candidates.

A lawyer's duty of care : beware the failure to advise of contingencies and foreseeable risks

It is trite law that a lawyer owes their client a duty of care requiring the lawyer to take reasonable steps to avoid their client suffering foreseeable economiic loss: Hawkins v Clayton. In the context of a property transaction this will include a duty to warn the client of anything that is unusual or anything which may affect the client obtaining the full benefit of the contract entered into: Macindoe v Parbery.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s 27(1) – duty of respondent to give information and documents

In Hare v Mount Isa City Council [2009] QDC 39 McGill DCJ examined the scope of s 27(1) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and its interpretation by the Court of Appeal in Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276. The judge expressed a number of concerns about the Act and the Regulation made under it, that are worthy of consideration by the Legislature.

Disclosure obligations on ex parte application for freezing order - duty of practitioners to the court - failure to comply with duty - serious dereliction of duty to court - supplemental order for costs against solicitors personally

The decision of Applegarth J in Heartwood Architectural & Joinery Pty Ltd v Redchip Lawyers [2009] QSC 195 (27 July 2009) involved a costs order against solicitors personally. This decision is but one of several recent decisions in which the court has been persuaded that the circumstances justified costs orders against legal practitioners on the indemnity basis. These decisions serve as a reminder to practitioners of their disclosure obligations when seeking any interlocutory relief in an ex parte application. These obligations are now clearly set out in r 14.4 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007 and r 25 of 2007 Barristers Rule. Inexperience or ignorance will not excuse breaches of the duties owed to the court.

Vulnerability held not to be pre-requisite for establishing a duty of care in claims of pure economic Loss

Case note Apache Energy Ltd v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (No 2) [2013] In 2011, headlines were made when Alcoa sued Apache Energy and its partners for $158 million, a loss it claimed was a consequence of Apache Energy failing to adequately inspect and maintain the gas pipelines that supplied the gas used by Alcoa in its business. As the loss was not a consequence of any property damage or injury to Alcoa, the loss is characterised as pure economic loss...

Practice and procedure - Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - duty of claimant to cooperate with insurer

In Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited v Brown [2004] QCA 325 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the extent of the duty of cooperation imposed on a claimant under s45 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The issue is an important one because it affects virtually all claims made under the Act.