By: Stephen White, Partner, Milton Latta, Senior Associate and Brett Sherwin, Solicitor
In the April 2016 Insurance Newsletter ‘When is a Contractor not a Contractor’, Carter Newell commented on the recent casualisation of workforces and the blurring of lines between ‘employees’ and ‘contractors’.
Another feature of the changing employment landscape has been the increasing outsourcing of labour and the emergence of labour hire companies. One of the principal benefits of outsourcing is that it provides flexibility in fluctuating markets. Another benefit is that organisations that adopt such a practice tend to be less exposed to liability through casual acts of negligence by its workers. However, as demonstrated by a recent decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal,1 this is not always the case.
By: Michael Bath, Partner and Christian Breen, Senior Associate
Establishing causation can sometimes be a difficult and complex task, particularly in cases involving psychiatric injuries. Occasionally, in those types of cases, insufficient attention may be given to causation by a plaintiff who has a strong position on breach.
By: Glenn Biggs, Partner and Allison Haworth, Senior Associate
The Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation (National Injury Insurance Scheme) Amendment Bill 2016 (Bill) was introduced into parliament on 14 June 2016 and has been referred to the Parliamentary Finance and Administration Committee (committee).
By: Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Ryan Stehlik, Senior Associate and Brett Sherwin, Solicitor
It has been a number of years since the Queensland courts have had the opportunity to examine disclosure obligations under the Personal Injuries and Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (PIPA). In this recent application, the court was able to revisit these pre-court provisions and the case serves as a refresher to practitioners and claims staff on disclosure obligations for respondents.
By: Mark Brookes, Partner and Tom Pepper, Solicitor
Our October 2015 newsletter ‘English court decision considers aggregate claims’ discussed the case of AIG Europe v OC320301 (formerly the International Law Partnership LLP)1 in which the Commercial Court of England and Wales considered whether individual claims brought by 214 investors who allegedly lost in excess of £10 million due to a failed scheme developed by the insured law firm, should be aggregated as one claim under the aggregation clause in the firm’s professional indemnity policy.