By Judith Waldock
In the February 2009 edition of Legal Directions, Emily Daffy and
Shantini Minjoot discussed a decision of the Tasmanian Full Court
which, as they foreshadowed, attracted the interest of the High
By Lupe Ortega
In this decision handed down last month, the High Court held that
the licensee of a restaurant was not liable for injuries to its
patrons arising from the criminal conduct of a third party, in
circumstances in which there was no action the licensee could have
taken which would, on the balance of probabilities, have prevented
By Stephen George
In the March 2009 edition of Legal Directions, we reported on the
decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal in the above
case. Parts of the Court of Appeal's decision have now been
appealed to the High Court which delivered its judgment on 2
December 2009. The decision of the Court of Appeal has been upheld
with the High Court finding that 'other insurance' clauses
are void only where the insured is a party to the other insurance
contract and that parts of an 'other insurance' clause
which do not have this effect remain valid.
By Ritsa Balfoort
The Victorian Supreme Court has recently revisited the complexities
of double insurance, deciding that the time at which the existence
of double insurance is to be considered is whether or not a common
liability existed at the time of the relevant occurrence.
By Charles Williams
In this case the NSW Court of Appeal had to deal with the interplay
between the provision of gratuitous domestic assistance and the
claimed need for assistance on a commercial basis into the future.
Of interest, the provision of past gratuitous assistance may not
immediately convert to damages for the cost of commercial services
post dating the trial.
Moray & Agnew continues to ramp up its thriving national
insurance practice securing high-ranking insurance law experts,
Anthony Henley and Alison Ryder in its Brisbane office. Henley and
Ryder join the firm as partners and bring their team of four
including senior associates Christine Houston, Nicola Ellis, Jordan
Farr and lawyer Erin Irvine.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The failure of a party to call a witness does not necessarily give rise to an adverse inference being drawn in accordance with Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. An unfavourable inference is drawn only if evidence otherwise provides a basis on which that unfavourable inference can be drawn.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).