Authors: Katherine Hayes, Partner and Greg Stirling, Senior Associate
The first judgment in an Australian shareholder class action finds that Myer Holdings Limited’s (Myer) non-disclosure and misleading and deceptive conduct did not cause the class of shareholders to suffer loss or damage.
The decision of Beach J of the Federal Court provides valuable guidance on the steps companies are required to take to comply with their continuous disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act and significantly, approves the application of market-based causation which does not require proof of reliance.
Authors: Rebecca Stevens, Partner & Milton Latta, Special Counsel
It is often the case in multi-party claims that a contractual relationship will exist between one or more defendants or third parties. Where those arrangements are reduced to writing, the contract will almost invariably contain insurance and indemnity provisions. Occasionally, the insurance provision will provide that one party is to take out liability insurance for the benefit of the other party. The scope of this obligation has proved in the past to be fertile ground for disputes.
Authors: Ben Hall, Partner, Luke Bush, Senior Associate & Amanda Le, Law Graduate
On 30 July 2019 Treasury released an exposure draft of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Unfair Terms in Insurance Contracts) Bill 2019 (Bill), which extends the unfair contract terms (UCT) regime to cover insurance contracts.
Author: Thomas B. Alleman
Many insurance policies contain a “war exclusion,” which states that there is no coverage for loss resulting from “war,” “warlike action by a military force,” or “insurrection, rebellion, [or] revolution.” Does the exclusion apply when a militant faction—specifically Hamas—shoots rockets into an area where the insured is conducting activities?
Authors: Michael Bath, Partner, Ryan Stehlik, Special Counsel & Kim Ong Lynch, Senior Associate
Navigating what will and will not constitute an obvious risk under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA) can be a tricky task. Two recent judgments delivered by the New South Wales Supreme and District Courts provide further guidance in determining when a risk will be obvious. This newsletter outlines the obvious risk provisions and examines those decisions.
- Momentary Misjudgment Insufficient to Crush Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages
- To What Extent Must Financial Advisers Know Their Clients?
- A Word to the Wise About Concurrent Causation
- If you are a claimant, witness or an expert making a false statement it is likely that you will face committal proceedings for contempt of court