Insights Insights
  1. Warning, Obvious Risk!

    7 December 2020 | Insurance & Health Law

    The WA Supreme Court of Appeal has confirmed that a residential occupier was not liable for injuries suffered by a neighbour who fell through a laserlite roof panel at the occupier’s home. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the risk was an obvious...

  2. Hazard reduction burns or hazard production burns? Duty of care breached by rural landowners

    14 May 2020 | Insurance & Health Law

    Despite engaging the Rural Fire Service to perform hazard reduction burns on their property, the New South Wales Supreme Court held that absentee landowners had breached their duty of care to prevent the re-ignition/spread of fire onto their...

  3. A landlord, a managing real estate agent, a delegable duty of care and a set of dodgy stairs

    24 February 2020 | Insurance & Health Law

    Who is liable for an injury to a tenant caused by the state of a property the subject of a residential lease? The landlord? The managing real estate agent? Both? Yeung v Santosa Realty Co Pty Ltd [2020] VSCA 7 considers a landlord’s delegable duty...

  4. Neighbour injured by “obvious risk”

    14 October 2019 | Insurance & Health Law

    A residential occupier was not liable for serious injuries suffered by a neighbour who fell through a laserlite patio roof while removing a solar hot water unit. The risk of stepping onto laserlite panels and falling was found by the Court to be an...

  5. Landlord escapes liability - District Court finds against managing agent for a tenant’s fall

    12 March 2019 | Insurance & Health Law

    The District Court of NSW recently found the owner and managing agent of residential premises were joint tortfeasors, liable for an injury occurring on the premises, and apportioned 100% of liability to the managing agent. In Issue Whether the property...

  6. Locking down liability - a discussion of a landlord's duty of care

    24 May 2018 | Insurance & Health Law

    The plaintiff suffered severe burns following an explosion and fire at premises owned by the first defendants and leased to their adult children, the second defendants. The court found the scope of the first defendants' duty as landlords did not...

Load More