Maurice Blackburn Cashman v. Brown
Case No.
M176/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
25/08/2010 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal)(Ashley & Mandie JJA & Ross AJA)
Catchwords
Damages — Statutory constraint on action for damages — Respondent former employee of applicant — Respondent made claim pursuant to Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) (“the Act”) for statutory compensation for non-economic loss arising from psychological injury suffered as result of actions of fellow employee — Victorian WorkCover Authority (“WorkCover”) accepted respondent had psychological injury arising out of employment with applicant — WorkCover referred medical questions to Medical Panel for opinion under s 67 of the Act — Medical Panel certified respondent had 30% permanent psychiatric impairment resulting from accepted injury — Respondent deemed by Act to have suffered “serious injury” and permitted to commence common law proceedings for damages as result — Proceedings commenced in County Court of Victoria — Applicant’s pleadings in defence contested causation and injury — Respondent pleaded in reply that applicant estopped from making assertion inconsistent with Medical Panel opinion — Whether defendant’s right to contest common law damages claims subject to the Act compromised by Medical Board opinion — Whether Medical Board opinion gives rise to issue estoppel for purposes of common law damages proceeding.
Documents
10/12/2010 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
21/12/2010 Notice of appeal
01/02/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/02/2011 Chronology
15/02/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
22/02/2011 Reply
21/03/2011 Supplementary written submissions (Appellant)
03/05/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
22/06/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Limited v. Mine Subsidence Board
Case No.
S312/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/06/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)(Spigelman CJ, Allsop P, Giles JA, Basten JA, Macfarlan JA)
Catchwords
Energy and resources — Compensation for subsidence caused by mining — Applicant owned and operated gas pipeline — Coal mining in vicinity of pipeline caused subsidence — Subsidence insufficient to damage pipeline, but future mining expected to cause cumulative level of subsidence sufficient to damage pipeline — Applicant engaged in preventive and mitigation works to protect pipeline — Works concluded prior to commencement of mining expected to cause damaging subsidence — Claim for compensation for costs of works rejected by respondent — Whether compensation payable for costs incurred with respect to anticipated subsidence — Whether requirement of causation in Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961 (NSW) s 12A(1)(b) determined by reference to single mining event or by reference to ongoing extraction in accordance with mining plan — Mine Subsidence Board v Wambo Coal Pty Ltd (2007) 54 LGERA 60 — Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961 (NSW) s 12A(1)(b).
Documents
10/12/2010 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
22/12/2010 Notice of appeal
01/02/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/02/2011 Chronology
15/02/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
22/02/2011 Reply
05/04/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
01/06/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Dasreef Pty Limited v. Hawchar
Case No.
S313/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
6/07/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)(Allsop P, Basten JA, Campbell JA)
Catchwords
Evidence — Admissibility and relevance — Opinion evidence — Expert opinion —Expert with experience relevant to general topic of industrial dust gave opinion evidence to Dust Diseases Tribunal on concentration of silica in air — Whether expert disclosed facts, assumptions and reasoning in manner sufficient to make it plain to trial judge that expert opinion wholly or substantially based on expert’s expertise in area of contention — Whether such disclosure necessary in order for evidence to be admissible — Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 79.
Documents
10/12/2010 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
22/12/2010 Notice of appeal
01/02/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/02/2011 Chronology
22/02/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
01/03/2011 Reply
06/04/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
22/06/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Cush v. Dillon
Boland v. Dillon
Case No.
S309/2010 and S310/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/07/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)(Allsop ACJ, Tobias JA, Bergin CJ in Eq)
Catchwords
Defamation — Defences — Qualified privilege — Boland and respondent directors and Cush General Manager of Borders River-Gwydir Catchment Management Authority (“the CMA”) — Respondent told chairman of CMA that “It is common knowledge among people in the CMA that [the applicants] are having an affair” — Common ground at trial that applicants not having affair and that respondent did not believe applicants having affair when comment made — Respondent denied making comment — Jury found respondent made defamatory comment — Respondent advanced defence of qualified privilege founded on perceived need to inform chairman of “the rumour and the accusation” of affair — Whether common law defence of qualified privilege available to publisher of defamatory statement who denies making statement — Whether publication of imputations of affair between director and General Manager of body, rather than rumour of possible affair, can be published by another director to chairman on occasion of qualified privilege — Whether voluntary nature of defamatory imputations decisive against defence of qualified privilege.
Documents
10/12/2010 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
22/12/2010 Notice of appeal
01/02/2011 Written submissions (Appellants)
01/02/2011 Chronology
15/02/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
07/04/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/08/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Westport Insurance Corporation and Ors v. Gordian Runoff Limited
Case No.
S219/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/04/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)(Spigelman CJ, Allsop P and Macfarlan JA)
Catchwords
Insurance — Reinsurance — Application of Insurance Act 1902 (NSW) (“the Act”) s 18B to reinsurance contracts.
Arbitration — The award — Appeal or judicial review — Grounds for remitting or setting aside — Error of law or error in relation to mixed question of fact and law — Where arbitrators found existence of underlying insurance contract to be cause of respondent’s loss within meaning of s 18B(1) of the Act — Whether error of law or mixed error of fact and law to conclude that s 18B(1) of the Act had no application to reinsurance contract — Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW) ss 38(5)(b)(i) and 38(5)(b)(ii).
Arbitration — The award — Appeal or judicial review — Grounds for remitting or setting aside — Whether arbitrators gave adequate reasons for making the award — Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW) s 29(1).
Documents
03/09/2010 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
24/09/2010 Notice of appeal
03/12/2010 Written submissions (Appellants)
03/12/2010 Chronology
10/12/2010 Written submissions (Respondent)
17/12/2010 Reply (Appellants)
25/01/2010 Written submissions
(Seeking leave to appear as amici curiae - Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration Ltd & Ors)
25/01/2010 Written submissions
(Seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae - Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
03/02/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
04/02/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/10/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)