Contact: Mark Brookes, Partner and Tom Pepper, Solicitor
In modern commerce, customers often negotiate policies of insurance directly with insurers over the internet rather than with traditional methods such as over the phone, or through an insurance broker.
While online applications provide an efficient and convenient arrangement for the insurer and customer, insurers should give careful consideration to the form of the application (including any questions posed in the application) bearing in mind that closed questions may have consequences in regard to the insured’s pre-contractual duty of disclosure.
Carter Newell Lawyers officially launched the Australian Civil Liability Guide 10th edition on 24 November 2016.
The 10th edition marks a significant milestone for Carter Newell, with this Guide being the only publication of its type released in Australia which provides a comprehensive overview of the maze of legislation and case law relevant to civil liability federally and in all Australian States and Territories. The 10th edition continues the tradition of providing relevant and informative reference materials to the firm’s clients, and the insurance and legal industries.
By: Rebecca Stevens, Partner and Brett Sherwin, Solicitor
McKenzie v Day (No 2)  NSWDC 236
It is recognised as a cornerstone legal principle that an owner and/or occupier of a property owes a duty of care to an entrant. However, there is also a correlative duty tasked upon the entrant to ensure they take reasonable care for their own safety.
Parties who successfully defend claims by impecunious plaintiffs are often placed in the unfortunate position of being unable to recovery the amount of any cost awards made in their favour.
The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) provides mechanisms for parties to apply to the court to order a plaintiff/appellant to give security to the court for an amount the court considers appropriate for the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding or appeal (as the case may be). Common methods of providing security include making a payment into court or lodging a bond or guarantee from a bank.
By: Mark Brookes, Partner and Tom Pepper, Solicitor
The High Court has recently considered the nature and scope of the duty of care a solicitor owes an intended beneficiary when drafting a client’s will. This case provides useful guidance on the limits of the duty of care owed to third party beneficiaries recognised in Hill v Van Erp, and reminds solicitors and their insurers to remain alive to the liabilities that can arise to parties outside of the solicitor-client relationship.
- Entitlement to indemnity costs in the Australian Federal Court
- You Do Not Have to Get Bit to Be Affected by Zika
- McDermott v Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated: The Australian High Court closes the chapter on Manual Defect Dispute
- Running out of time: all parties required to actively progress claims