| Allianz
Australia Insurance Ltd v Pomfret (NSWCA) - workers
compensation - dust diseases - arguable case insurer liable to indemnify
employer for its liability to worker
|
| CGU
Insurance Ltd v Davies (NSWCA) - workers
compensation - employer liable for worker’s occupational disease - insurer
required to indemnify employer
|
| Merhi
v Ford Motor Company of Australia (VSCA) - costs - appeal
succeeded by application to admit fresh evidence - costs of appeal and
application apportioned
|
| Smith
v Marshall [No 2] (WASC) - defamation - impugned imputations
struck out
|
| Stewart
v Ackland (ACTCA) - negligence - student injured performing
backward somersault on jumping pillow on farm –
occupiers of farm who conducted amusement park business liable - appeal
dismissed
|
| McFadyen
v Jenson (ACTSC) - motor vehicle accident - liability
admitted - credit - medical evidence - damages assessed
|
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Allianz Australia Insurance
Ltd v Pomfret
[2015] NSWCA 4
Court
of Appeal of New South Wales
Beazley
P; McColl, Basten, Macfarlan & Meagher JJA
Workers
compensation - insurance - employer’s liability for occupational disease -
worker employed by company (Ceeco) in 1974 - worker employed by Ceeco again
from early 1976 until 23/12/78 - worker exposed to asbestos dust and fibre
during periods - up to 31/1/78, contract of insurance between Allianz and Ceeco
indemnified Ceeco against liability as employer during policy period. - Ceeco
deregistered - worker sued Allianz for compensation for asbestosis and related diseases
- Allianz contended relevant disease under
s151AB(1) Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) was asbestosis and that it was not liable
because worker employed by Ceeco until 23/12/78 - when worker ‘last employed’
in conditions to nature of which occupational disease due Allianz claimed it
was not ‘on risk’ - divisible or indivisible harm or injury - held: purpose
of s151AB was to identify insurer liable to indemnify employer liable for
occupational disease of gradual onset contracted over period of employment
involving exposure to relevant harmful conditions - must be established that period
of exposure caused or substantially contributed to harm subject of claim - primary judge correctly concluded there was
arguable case Allianz liable to indemnify Ceeco in respect of claimed liability
to worker - appeal dismissed.
Allianz
Australia Insurance Ltd
[From Benchmark 16 February 2015] |
CGU
Insurance Ltd v Davies
[2015] NSWCA 5
Court of Appeal of New South
Wales
Beazley P; McColl, Basten,
Macfarlan & Meagher JJA
Workers compensation - worker
employed by company (Fowler) from 1940 to 1979 - worker employed from 1979 by
another company (Seapip) - worker exposed to silica dust
in in each employment - worker developed silicosis as result of inhaling dust -
worker sued Fowler and Seapip - claim settled - appellant assumed liabilities
of Fowler’s workers compensation insurer (South British) up to 30/6/79 - no
known workers compensation insurer of Fowler after 30/6/79 and before it sold
business to Seapip - appellant contended it was not liable to indemnify Fowler because
policy which applied for period ending 30/6/79 only indemnified against
liability accruing during period of insurance - held: relevant liability was
for occupational disease caused only by exposure to silica dust during
particular period - claim was in respect of period of employment to the nature
of which the disease was due, which
ended on 30/6/79 - that was time at which Fowler’s liability for disease was
taken to have arisen by s151AB(1) Workers
Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) - South British was on risk at that time and
its policy indemnified Fowler against that liability - appeal dismissed.
CGU Insurance Ltd
[From Benchmark 13 February 2015] |
Merhi v Ford Motor
Company of Australia
[2015] VSCA 13
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Neave, Tate & Santamaria JJ
Costs - Court allowed appeal against judgment that appellant
had not suffered serious injury within s134AB(37)(a) or (c) Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) -
Court held grounds of appeal alleging error were not made out, but that appellant
should be given leave to adduce fresh evidence - Court remitted matter to
County Court to determine whether appellant was suffering from serious injury -
held: appellant had failed to make out grounds of appeal but succeeded in
having matter remitted as consequence of successful application to admit fresh
evidence - apportionment of costs of appeal and application justified - respondent
to pay 60% of costs of appeal and application.
Merhi
[From Benchmark 13 February 2015] |
Smith
v Marshall [No 2]
[2015] WASC 62
Supreme Court of Western Australia
K Martin J
Pleadings - defamation - action arising
out of publication to Australian Shareholders’ Association as well as three
other persons by open letter - defendants challenged natural and ordinary
meaning imputations in plaintiff’s amended statement of claim - popular or
false innuendos - defendants claimed imputations were manifestly groundless or
untenable meanings, and that they were also embarrassing - held: three of four
impugned imputations struck out.
Smith
[From Benchmark 19 February 2015] |
Stewart
v Ackland [2015]
ACTCA 1
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Penfold J; Walmsley & Robinson AJJ
Negligence - appellants were owner/occupiers
of farm on which they conducted business involving amusement park - respondent
university student injured when performing aerial backward somersault on
jumping pillow owned by owner/occupiers - trial judge found owner/occupiers
liable for respondent’s injuries - held: trial judge correctly decided activity
in which respondent was engaged when injured was a dangerous recreational activity - no error in finding that risk was
not obvious - open to trial judge to
find breach of duty by appellants and that causation established - appeal
dismissed.
Stewart
[From Benchmark 17 February 2015] |
McFadyen
v Jenson
[2015] ACTSC 12
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital
Territory
Burns J
Damages - negligence - plaintiff was
driving motor vehicle which was stationary in traffic when vehicle driven by
first defendant collided with rear of plaintiff’s vehicle - second defendant
was first defendant’s third party insurer - plaintiff injured as result of
collision - extent of injury in dispute - defendants admitted liability -
assessment of damages - medical evidence - credit - held: plaintiff was honest
witness - damages assessed at $104,447.95 - judgment for plaintiff.
McFadyen
[From Benchmark 19 February 2015] |
