Curwoods Lawyers Australia: Duty Of Care Owed By A Principal To An Independent Contractor: Applying Leighton Contractors v Fox Outside The Construction Industry Curwoods Case Note
Judgment date: 5 July 2010. Unilever Australia Limited v
Pahi & Anor; Swire Cold Storage Pty Limited v Pahi &
Anor [2010] NSWCA 149, Court of Appeal1
In Brief
The common law only imposes a duty to take reasonable care. The
content of the duty is not one which requires a person to use
measures within their power to obviate any risk of injury.
The duty of care owed by a principal to an independent
contractor is not co-extensive with the duty owed by an employer. A
principal does not owe a contractor a duty to control the system of
work implemented by the contractor.
Background
The plaintiff, Tricia Pahi, sustained a repetitive strain injury
to her left wrist whilst engaged in the work of repackaging ice
cream products for Unilever Australia Limited t/as Streets Ice
Cream (Streets)....
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
As the egg recall from two egg producers in Iowa, Hillandale Farms of Iowa, Inc. and Wright County Egg, continues to unfold (a half a billion eggs at this writing), affected downstream purchasers should consider the availability of insurance coverage for resulting losses.
As a result of the U.S. health reform laws, specifically the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively "PPACA"), many non-U.S. entities with offices here, such as foreign corporations, embassies and international organizations, are left to wonder if they soon will be required to provide health coverage to their U.S.-based employees.
An insurer which intends to join the Nominal Defendant to proceedings must give notice of that intention within three months of receiving a claim form from the claimant, and must provide details of the allegations against the Nominal Defendant within two months thereafter.
Liability insurers, especially those involved in leaky building claims, can breathe a sigh of relief at the Court of Appeal's decision in Lumley General Insurance v Body Corporate 205963 and Leuschke Group Architects Limited (In Liquidation).
A Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance policy is designed to protect the directors and officers of a company from losses resulting from claims made against them in relation to the performance of their duties.
On July 15, 2010, the Senate passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Act). Title V of the Act is captioned "Insurance" and contains a number of provisions that directly impact insurance and reinsurance companies, which we have summarized below.
The recent High Court case of Devcich v AMI Insurance Limited provides an important reminder to insurers of how difficult it is to prove that the insured has caused the damage claimed.
The Principal Claims Assessor currently holds the view that there is no distinction
between offers made under s 82(1) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (the
Act) and offers not made under s 82(1).
Reliance, or transaction causation, is a significant element in a securities fraud case. But proving reliance by individual investors in a securities class action is often a cumbersome endeavor that may overwhelm the questions of law or fact common to the proposed class, and may therefore serve to preclude class certification.
