Daily Insurance: Wednesday, 4 November 2015
For the best view, please download images or click here
AR Conolly Company Lawyers.
A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.

Daily Insurance

Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
Bronkhorst v Lloyd (NSWSC) - pleadings - equity - defence struck out - defendant to provide written account of dealings as attorney or agent for plaintiff - orders and directions
Golden v V’Landys (NSWSC) - evidence - loss of income - misfeasance in public office - permission refused to file and rely on evidence at very late stage in proceedings
Omni Care v Koumouris (VSC) - judicial review - workers compensation - psychiatric condition attributable to work-related injury - no error in medical panel’s decision - judicial review refused
Whyte v LM Investment Management Ltd (in liq)(rcvrs & mgrs apptd) (QSC) - legal costs - corporations - applicant not a “non-associated third party payer” in respect of legal costs payable by company to law practice - applicant not entitled to notice of costs assessment or to make submissions
Digby v The Compass Institute Inc (QSC) - negligence - employer liable for injuries to employee suffered during course of presentation by police officer - State not liable - damages limited by extent of injuries established by plaintiff
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
Bronkhorst v Lloyd [2015] NSWSC 1618
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Slattery J
Pleadings - equity - plaintiff mother sought orders that defendant daughter provide written accounts of her dealings as attorney or agent for plaintiff; opportunity to examine daughter in respect of written accounts and that daughter pay mother sum and interest as may seem just - plaintiff sought that daughter’s defence be struck out and part of final relief be granted - defendant sought another adjournment of hearing - s61 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) - held: no justification for adjournment - no rational basis to allow matter to be adjourned - defendant had failed without adequate explanation to comply with Court’s orders her to answer request for particulars - defence only pleaded general issue - defence did not identify true matters defendant proposed to put in issue - defence struck out - Court satisfied defendant should provide verified detailed written account of dealings as attorney or agent for plaintiff during questioned period - orders and directions made.
Golden v V’Landys [2015] NSWSC 1589
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Button J
Evidence - plaintiff was horse trainer “warned off” by first defendant - plaintiff claimed damages for loss of income and funds due to inability to work as horse trainer - plaintiff claimed second defendant Licencing Committee of Racing New South Wales acted beyond powers and first defendant committed tort of misfeasance in public office - plaintiff sought leave to file and rely on further evidence above and beyond evidence filed and served - hearing date set for 10/11/15 - held: there was force in plaintiff’s submission that defendants could not point to prejudice but plaintiff had not demonstrated basis for receipt of evidence at very late stage - no reasonably persuasive explanation why timetables should be overridden - application refused.
Omni Care v Koumouris [2015] VSC 603
Supreme Court of Victoria
Bell J
Judicial review - workers compensation - defendant employee injured during course of employment with plaintiff employer and in receipt of weekly payments of compensation - plaintiff terminated payments - questions referred to medical panel - employer sought judicial review of medical panel’s opinion that employee was suffering from knee injury and major depressive disorder attributable to that injury - Div 3, Pt 6.Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) - ‘novus actus interveniens’ - causation - held: panel took into account whether psychiatric condition caused by work-related injury or independently caused - panel’s findings and opinions legally available - no inconsistency between findings and opinions - no error of law in panel’s reasons, which fully disclosed path of reasoning - application for judicial review dismissed.
Omni Care
Whyte v LM Investment Management Ltd (in liq)(rcvrs & mgrs apptd) [2015] QSC 303
Supreme Court of Queensland
Jackson J
Legal costs - corporations - respondent company in liquidation was responsible entity and trustee of managed investment scheme - respondent or liquidators was client of law firm - Court directed respondent to wind up scheme - respondent then ordered to be wound up in insolvency - applicant appointed as person to take responsibility for ensuring scheme wound up in accordance with constitution and appointed receiver of property of scheme - Court ordered invoices for legal costs alleged to be payable under Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) as between client law practice to be assessed - client was respondent or liquidators of respondent - applicant sought directions whether he was entitled to notice of application, to be served with copy of application for costs assessment, and entitled to notice of costs assessment - whether applicant was a “non-associated third party payer” within meaning of s301(3) - whether costs assessment subject to r720 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) - whether “the costs are payable out of a fund and applicant was “the person having charge of the fund” - held: applicant was not a “non-associated third party payer” in respect of legal costs payable by respondent to the law practice - r720 did not entitle applicant to notice of costs assessment or to make submissions in relation to it - application dismissed.
Digby v The Compass Institute Inc [2015] QSC 308
Supreme Court of Queensland
Atkinson J
Negligence - first defendant provided disability services to young people - plaintiff employed by first defendant - second defendant State employed police officer who attended first defendant’s premises - police officer gave presentation and turned on siren as part of it - client with disabilities became startled and fell - plaintiff injured trying to arrest client’s fall - extent of respective liabilities of employer and State for plaintiff’s injuries - extent of plaintiff’s injuries - held: no breach of duty by police officer - first defendant breached duty in tort and contract to take reasonable care to avoid exposing plaintiff to risk of injury - first defendant was liable for plaintiff’s injuries - plaintiff failed to persuade Court she suffered more than mild shoulder injury, minor somatic symptom disorder in injury’s immediate aftermath and consequent addiction to painkillers - damages limited to $158,045 - judgment for plaintiff against first defendant.