We are pleased to invite readers to join Holman Webb's Insurance Group for our first webinar of the year: 2021 - A Year in Review.

Presented by Partner and National Insurance Group Leader John Van de Poll and taking place on Wednesday 23 February 2022, this webinar will examine a range of significant cases from 2021.

In the December 2021 decision in Skytraders Pty Ltd v Ian Wallace Meyer [2021] NSWSC 1670 (an employment and confidential information dispute), the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the Plaintiff was entitled to have an independent forensic computer expert appointed by the Court to conduct an analysis of the defendants’ documents before pleading and evidence closed, to permit the Plaintiff to gain evidence to support its case against the Defendant employee.

This case highlights what is required to have an early independent examination ordered before the pleadings, evidence and discovery stage.  It also demonstrates the disclosure requirements for a party seeking ex parte orders.

The practitioner in the matter of Hampshire v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 283 was first registered as a medical practitioner in 1976, and had been a consultant psychiatrist since 1988.

His registration was cancelled by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal in 2020 because he had sent sexually inappropriate text messages to a young woman after a medico-legal assessment of her in April 2017. He had also failed to comply with health conditions on his registration that imposed limits on his intake of alcohol and sedatives, and he was considered not competent to practice due to alcohol dependence.

This matter is not the first to clearly illustrate the importance of complying with professional standards, and the risks of failing to do so.  Hampshire v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 283 is similar to the matter of Rahman v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 247 (discussed in Holman Webb’s December 2021 article), in that the practitioners in question both had histories of non-compliance with conditions, which gave the respective Tribunal Members no confidence that either would adhere to further conditions imposed.

The current landscape of regulation in respect of digital payments within Australia is set to change significantly within the coming 12-18 months.  

Part of this change is the prospect of greater codification and regulation of the legal management of the varying types of payment systems - including Buy Now Pay Later (‘BNPL’), cryptocurrency, and mobile telephones; as well as traditional systems such as credit cards and eftpos.

Following on from previous articles on the same, this in-depth update from Property and Commercial Special Counsel Alex Bentancor takes a look at the current Retail and Commercial Lease landscape within NSW, as we move into another year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This piece covers a range of relevant information for commercial and retail landlords, as well as tenants, including:

• Retail and Other Commercial Leases (COVID-19) Amendment Regulation 2021 (‘2021 Regulations’);
• Retail and Other Commercial Leases (COVID-19) Regulation 2022 (‘2022 Regulations’);
• “Leasing Principles” to be followed by landlords;
• Prescribed Actions by landlords that are prohibited by the Code; and
• Amended 2021 Regulations.

It is common practice for insurers to offer policies of insurance where persons or entities other than, or in addition to, the named insured receive the benefits of the relevant insurance cover as additional insureds or third party beneficiaries.  Under the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) (‘ICA’), a third party beneficiary to a contract of insurance has a right to recover from the insurer the amount of any loss suffered by the third party beneficiary, even though the third party beneficiary is not a party to the contract.

The ICA defines “third party beneficiary” as a person who is not a party to the contract, but is specified or referred to in the contract as a party to whom the benefit of insurance cover extends.  While the ICA has attempted to provide some certainty in relation to the status of third party beneficiaries, some confusion remains surrounding the rights and status of entities claiming entitlements under policies of general insurance.

Such confusion often stems from the wording of the contracts which underly this obligation – although similarly, the policy wording and its application can create confusion at times. Regardless, it is important for parties to be aware of the risks associated with both naming and not naming interested parties on policies of insurance.

The recent NSW Supreme Court decision of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Australia Branch v SunWater Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1582 restates the relevant principles to be applied when considering the application of professional services exclusion clauses when construing an insurance contract.

This case note from Insurance Partner Zara Officer discusses the recent matter of Rahman v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 247, an inappropriate prescribing case against Dr Abdul Bassel Rahman.

The offending conduct occurred over a period of 5 years, between 2011 and 2015. In May 2021 the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal decided to cancel the practitioner’s registration, and directed that he not seek a review for a period of 12 months. The practitioner appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency removed the practitioner’s name from the register soon after the Tribunal orders were made.

The case is noteworthy because it leaves no doubt that once cancellation of registration has occurred, the Tribunal cannot later order reinstatement, pending an appeal.   

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (‘OAIC’) has released its 2020–21 annual report and performance statement.

In the past 12 months, the OAIC has sought to establish strong privacy protections to both increase public confidence in the use of personal information, and minimise the public health risks associated with COVID-19.

In a single judge decision delivered on 7 December 2021, the Supreme Court of NSW has provided guidance on what is required of AFCA in its procedures to determine factual disputes.

In the decision of Australian Capital Financial Management Pty Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited (2021) NSWFC 1577, Ball J in the Supreme Court of NSW made a number of findings concerning an application for judicial review of an AFCA decision.