In this episode we consider the recent case decided by the Queensland Court of Appeal of Springfree Trampoline v Forostenko [2024] QCA 255, which involved a claim brought in negligence and s138 of the Australian Consumer Law against Springfree Trampoline for a trampoline accident on the basis that it was alleged there were safety defects owing to defective warnings given about the trampoline's design features and risks of suffering foot injuries.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we consider the recent High Court of Australia case of Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41, which considered whether the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat could be held vicariously liable for the sexual abuse committed by a priest. In doing so, the Court considered whether the doctrine could be extended beyond employment relationships, to relationships "akin to employment" as has occurred under UK and Canadian common law.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we look at Roberts v Shimmin [2024] NSWDC 171, a recent successful medical negligence proceeding brought against a treating orthopaedic surgeon in respect of a negligently-performed total knee replacement surgery peformed in 2012 on a Plaintiff with no knee cap which had been removed years earlier in a patellectomy in 1982.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we consider the case of Belgrave Heights v Moore [2020] VSCA 240, a case in which the Victorian Court of Appeal considered whether, when there is injury suffered in the course of employment to a worker while driving a motor vehicle in the State of Victoria, the application for a "Serious Injury" certificate giving permission to commence damages proceedings is governed by the 'gateway' requirements of section 93 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) or the applicable Workcover legislation, here s134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic).

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we consider the case of Mt Owen v Parkes [2023] NSWCA 77, a case where the NSW Court of Appeal upheld a first instance decision which held a host employer was vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of a host employee, the Court satisfied there had been on the evidence at trial an effective shift or transfer of vicarious liability from the labour hire employer to the host.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we consider the case of Noureddine v Adlard [2022] VSC 719, a judicial review application of a Medical Panel determination decided by Walker JA sitting at first instance in the Victorian Supreme Court which involved a question as to whether, when a Medical Panel requested to provide its binding medical opinions to referred medical questions, undertakes its own independent research and fails to provide the product of that research to the parties for comment or submissions before rendering its opinion, that failure constitutes a breach of its procedural fairness obligations owed to the parties.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we consider the recent High Court of Australia case of Kozarov v State of Victoria [2022] HCA 12, which considered the circumstances in which employers will owe a duty to take reasonable care against the risk of psychological injury to its employees in employment, in the context of this case involving Ms Kozarov, a former prosecutor/solicitor working in the sexual offences unit of the Office of Public Prosecutions who suffered PTSD and major depressive disorder in employment by vicarious trauma. In doing so, had occasion to consider what the Court had previously said on the issue in Koehler v Cerebos (Australia).

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we consider the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal in Faucett v St George Bank [2003] NSWCA 43 - a case in which the Court overturned a first instance verdict in the Defendant bank's favour, finding liability to its employee bank teller for psychological injuries sustained in the course of her employment arising from an armed robbery at the bank, the bank's security and safety systems found to be lacking and causative of her injuries, loss and damage. A rare and therefore important case where a Modbury Triangle-type argument succeeded in a Plaintiff's favour

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.