From backyard campfire to bushfire: defendants found liable for damage resulting from 25,520-hectare bushfire2 August 2021 | Insurance & Health Law
The Court found two defendants were liable for 400 plaintiffs’ loss resulting from a bushfire that started with a poorly extinguished campfire. The defendants were found to have been negligent in both lighting the fire in the first place and subsequently failing to check on it for the following 6...
The Opal Tower - installed, erected, supplied…but not a "Product"22 July 2021 | Insurance & Health Law
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia was asked to determine a rather unique dispute as to whether the Opal Tower was a “Product” for the purposes of a policy of insurance. Having regard to the context of the policy as a whole, the Court said no.
First in not necessarily best dressed when it comes to competing class actions15 April 2021 | Insurance & Health Law
This article discusses the approach taken by NSW and Federal Courts in determining which competing class actions arising out of the same controversy should proceed and which should be stayed. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach, but Courts should consider which proceeding is in the best...
Common fund orders in class actions considered again8 October 2018 | Insurance & Health Law
Earlier this year, Justice Lee of the Federal Court handed down the decision of Perera v GetSwift Limited  FCA 732 (Getswift), which dealt with the issue of competing class actions. Whilst the decision is currently the subject of an appeal, as it...
Money Max & ors in the Money with Class Action Settlement against QBE Approved20 July 2018 | Insurance & Health Law
The Federal Court of Australia has recently approved a settlement of $132.5 million inclusive of costs between QBE Insurance Group Limited (QBE) and registered class members who acquired shares in QBE between August and December 2013, and who suffered...