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.
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;  FCA 424  (ALR) (per Gray J, Carr and Goldberg JJ agreeing), the Full Federal Court explained the principle for an award of indemnity costs.
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.
Contact: Shannon O'Hara, Senior Associate
Since 2014, Carter Newell has followed the progress of the matter of Graham McDermott & Ors -ats- Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated (RHC). Readers will recall in November 2015, RHC were granted special leave by the Australian High Court (High Court) to have the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal reviewed. The matter was heard in early 2016. In June 2016, the High Court handed down a decision in favour of RHC, setting aside the orders of the Queensland Court of Appeal with costs in favour of RHC.
By: Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Ryan Stehlik, Senior Associate and Brett Sherwin, Solicitor
The Queensland Court of Appeal has recently upheld a decision of the Queensland District Court concerning an application for dismissal for want of prosecution in the context of an insurance litigation matter. The case provides a defining insight into the court’s approach to such an application and suggests defendants also need to be proactive in progressing a matter, even if the plaintiff is not.