Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v. Thelander
Case No.
S418/2011; S419/2011
Related matters:
S416/2011 – State of New South Wales v. Williamson
S417/2011 – Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v. Cross
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/06/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)(Hodgson JA, Basten JA, Sackville AJA)
Catchwords
Costs — Recoverable costs — Limitations — Personal injury damages — Trial judge held respondents suffered injuries from assaults committed by employees of Australian Venue Security Services Pty Ltd ("Insured") — Trial judge held verdict for damages against Insured covered by Insured's insurance policy held with applicant — Whether respondents' claims were claims for personal injury damages within meaning of s 198D of Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) or s 338 of Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) — Whether expression "personal injury damages" in Legal Profession Acts has same meaning as in Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
Words and phrases — "personal injury damages", "the same meaning".
Documents
09/12/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
22/12/2011 Notice of appeal
18/01/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
18/01/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
09/02/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
16/02/2012 Reply
15/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
12/12/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
17/12/2015 Judgment
Certain Lloyds Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v. Cross
Case No.
S417/2011
Related matters:
S416/2011 – State of New South Wales v. Williamson
S418/2011; S419/2011 – Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v. Thelander
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/06/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)(Hodgson J, Basten JA, Sackville AJA)
Catchwords
Costs — Recoverable costs — Limitations — Personal injury damages — Trial judge held respondents suffered injuries from assaults committed by employees of Australian Venue Security Services Pty Ltd ("Insured") — Trial judge held verdict for damages against Insured covered by Insured's insurance policy held with applicant — Whether respondents' claims were claims for personal injury damages within meaning of s 198D of Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) or s 338 of Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) — Whether expression "personal injury damages" in Legal Profession Acts has same meaning as in Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
Words and phrases — "personal injury damages", "the same meaning".
Document
09/12/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
22/12/2011 Notice of appeal
18/01/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
18/01/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
09/02/2012 Written submissions (Respondents)
16/02/2012 Reply
15/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
12/12/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
17/12/2015 Judgment
State of New South Wales v. Williamson
Case No.
S416/2011
Related matters:
S417/2011 – Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v. Cross
S418/2011; S419/2011 – Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v. Thelander
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
5/07/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)(Hodgson JA, Campbell JA, Macfarlan JA)
Catchwords
Costs — Recoverable costs — Limitations — Personal injury damages — Respondent sought damages from applicant for trespass to person constituting battery and false imprisonment — Judgment for respondent entered by consent without admission as to liability — Respondent sought declaration that costs of proceeding not regulated by s 338 of Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) — Whether respondent's claim a claim for personal injury damages — Whether deprivation of liberty and loss of dignity capable of being personal injury or "impairment of a person's physical or mental condition" for purpose of Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 11 — Whether claim for damages that includes claims based on false imprisonment and assault, which are not severable, a claim for personal injury damages — Whether claim for damages for false imprisonment severable from claim for damages for assault — Whether New South Wales Court of Appeal bound by decision in Cross v Certain Lloyds Underwriters [2011] NSWCA 136.
Documents
09/12/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
22/12/2011 Notice of appeal
20/01/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
20/01/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
10/02/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
15/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
12/12/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Penberthy and Anor v. Barclay and Ors
Case No.
P57/2011
Related matter:
P55/2011 – Barclay v. Penberthy and Ors
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/06/2011 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal)(Martin CJ, McLure J, Mazza J)
Catchwords
Torts — Negligence — Duty of care — Economic loss — Loss of services — First respondent piloted aircraft that crashed, killing two and injuring three employees of third respondents — Cause of crash determined to be failure of part designed by applicant — Court of Appeal held applicant and first respondent owed third respondents duty of care, which they breached, causing economic loss to third respondents — Whether applicant owed third respondents duty of care in respect of economic loss claim — Whether existence of action for loss of services a relevant factor in determining whether applicant owed third respondents duty of care — Whether existence of action for loss of services requires imposition of common law duty of care.
Documents
09/12/2011 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link to Perth)
21/12/2011 Notice of appeal
23/12/2011 Notice of contention
23/12/2011 Notice of cross-appeal
05/01/2012 Written submissions (Appellants)
05/01/2012 Chronology (Appellants)
27/01/2012 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
03/02/2012 Reply
01/05/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
17/05/2012 Further submissions (Second Respondent)
02/10/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
07/11/2012 Orders pronounced
Barclay v. Penberthy and Ors
Case No.
P55/2011
Related matter:
P57/2011 – Penberthy and Anor v. Barclay & Ors
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/06/2011 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal)(Martin CJ, McLure J, Mazza J)
Catchwords
Torts — Negligence — Duty of care — Economic loss — Loss of services — First respondent piloted aircraft that crashed, killing two and injuring three employees of third respondents — Cause of crash determined to be failure of part designed by applicant — Court of Appeal held applicant and first respondent owed third respondents duty of care, which they breached, causing economic loss to third respondents — Whether applicant owed third respondents duty of care in respect of economic loss claim — Whether existence of action for loss of services a relevant factor in determining whether applicant owed third respondents duty of care — Whether existence of action for loss of services requires imposition of common law duty of care.
Documents
09/12/2011 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by V/link to Perth)
20/12/2011 Notice of appeal
23/12/2011 Notice of contention
23/12/2011 Notice of cross-appeal
04/01/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/01/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
27/01/2012 Written submissions (Third Respondent)
03/02/2012 Reply
01/05/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
17/05/2012 Further submissions (Third Respondent)
31/05/2012 Further submissions (Appellant)
02/10/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
07/11/2012 Orders pronounced