Insurance Law



Insurance Law


By: Rebecca Stevens, Partner and Brett Sherwin, Solicitor

McKenzie v Day (No 2) [2016] 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.

Read more: Mistaking a step – Court throws out trip and fall claim of community support worker


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.

To read the full article click here, or visit www.carternewell.com.


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.

To read the full article click here, or visit www.carternewell.com.


By: Mark Brookes, Partner and Dee Wood, Senior Associate

As the gap widens between the amount of costs clients pay their solicitors and the amount they can recover on a standard basis in matters litigated in the Federal Court, solicitors are increasingly requested by their clients to seek indemnity costs orders in both interlocutory hearings and at trial.

In Hamod v New South Wales (2002) 188 ALR 659; [2002] FCA 424 [665] (ALR) (per Gray J, Carr and Goldberg JJ agreeing), the Full Federal Court explained the principle for an award of indemnity costs.

To read the full article click here, or visit www.carternewell.com.


By: Jordan Jacob

On Monday, August 1, 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued a travel warning to pregnant women to avoid the Wynwood, Midtown and Edgewater areas in Miami, Florida, due to the increasing number of people contracting the Zika virus directly from infected mosquitos within this one-square-mile region.

Read more: You Do Not Have to Get Bit to Be Affected by Zika