The first time the 2013 CTP regime is judicially considered in SA9 June 2022 | Insurance & Health Law
In spite of being introduced in 2013, changes to Civil Liability Act 1936 for CTP claims had not been judicially considered until this matter proceeded to in the District Court in 2021.
Tasmanian general damages trailing behind the mainland no longer!7 June 2022 | Insurance & Health Law
In this decision the Tasmanian Supreme Court has taken a big step towards bringing awards for general damages into line with other Australian jurisdictions, changing the quantum landscape for Tasmanian CTP claims. In Issue The court’s considerations...
Statutory Benefits and Single Vehicle Motor Accidents in NSW7 June 2022 | Insurance & Health Law
The definition of “motor accident” under the 2017 CTP scheme is identical to the 1999 CTP scheme. Section 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (MAIA) and Section 3 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) (MACA) both...
Oh the pain! The true cost of pain management for CTP claims in Australia6 June 2022 | Insurance & Health Law
The costs for management of chronic pain in Australia are expected to rise in real terms. In 2019, Deloitte conducted a study that estimated the costs of pain management would rise from $139.3 billion (2018) to $215.6 billion in 20501. There are many...
Limitations of inferential reasoning considered in determining whether there was negligence of the driver of an unidentified vehicle20 April 2022 | Insurance & Health Law
The Victorian Supreme Court has highlighted the limitations of inferential reasoning in relation to a plaintiff’s ability to prove that the oily substance on a highway, that caused her to collide with another vehicle, was on the highway by reason of the negligence of the driver of an unidentified...
Volenti defence against a wife's psychiatric injury claim24 January 2022 | Insurance & Health Law
Defendant driver in a single vehicle accident defends the Plaintiff's claim for psychiatric injury arising from the death of her husband who was the Defendant's pillion passenger in the accident, on the basis of no duty of care owed or voluntary assumption of risk by the passenger.