Unusually, in the second half of 2021 there have already been two cases relating to notifications under ‘claims made and notified’ policies, which have looked at whether an Insured’s failure to notify facts and circumstances that have the potential to give rise to a claim can be cured by section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984.

In this article, Insurance Partner Zara Officer discusses how the recent matters of Avant Insurance Limited v Burnie [2021] NSWCA 272 and Darshn v Avant Insurance Limited [2021] FCA 706 have clarified that omissions to notify facts and circumstances that might give rise to a claim are not omissions to which section 54 can apply.

On 10 November 2021, the Supreme Court issued an interesting decision in the matter of Chahrouk v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2021] NSWSC 1457 (10 November 2021).

From this case we can see the importance of clearly explaining any argument (or counter argument) on causation, in relation to each and every specific injury alleged.   Of course, one cannot ensure that a medical assessor does in fact consider the argument - but at least there will be grounds to seek Review. 

In addition, where a specific scientific study is material to a decision, then it ought to be identified in the decision, but a Panel is entitled to rely on settle medical facts and theories without elaborating on the source of that knowledge.

Despite the increasing rates of COVID-19 vaccination across Australia, issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine and the workplace remain at the forefront of conversation; particularly given the mandating of vaccines within some industries and states. 

Authored by Holman Webb Lawyers Workplace Relations Partner Alicia Mataere and Associate Lee Pike, this guide is designed to walk you through the issues relating to COVID-19 vaccines and the workplace, to assist in your understanding of whether the vaccine is mandatory for your workplace, and if not, to help you decide whether you can/should make vaccines mandatory within your workplace.

Despite the increasing rates of COVID-19 vaccination across Australia, issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine and the workplace remain at the forefront of conversation; particularly given the mandating of vaccines within some industries and states. 

Authored by Holman Webb Lawyers Workplace Relations Partner Alicia Mataere and Associate Lee Pike, this guide is designed to walk those within the Aged Care industry through the issues relating to COVID-19 vaccines and the workplace, to assist in your understanding of whether the vaccine is mandatory for your workplace, and if not, to help you decide whether you can/should make vaccines mandatory within your workplace.

Despite the increasing rates of COVID-19 vaccination across Australia, issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine and the workplace remain at the forefront of conversation; particularly given the mandating of vaccines within some industries and states. 

Authored by Holman Webb Lawyers Workplace Relations Partner Alicia Mataere and Associate Lee Pike, this guide is designed to walk those within the Education and Care industry through the issues relating to COVID-19 vaccines and the workplace, to assist in your understanding of whether the vaccine is mandatory for your workplace, and if not, to help you decide whether you can/should make vaccines mandatory within your workplace.

Despite the increasing rates of COVID-19 vaccination across Australia, issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine and the workplace remain at the forefront of conversation; particularly given the mandating of vaccines within some industries and states. 

Authored by Holman Webb Lawyers Workplace Relations Partner Alicia Mataere and Associate Lee Pike, this guide is designed to walk those within the Building and Construction industry through the issues relating to COVID-19 vaccines and the workplace, to assist in your understanding of whether the vaccine is mandatory for your workplace, and if not, to help you decide whether you can/should make vaccines mandatory within your workplace.

Despite the increasing rates of COVID-19 vaccination across Australia, issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine and the workplace remain at the forefront of conversation; particularly given the mandating of vaccines within some industries and states. 

Authored by Holman Webb Lawyers Workplace Relations Partner Alicia Mataere and Associate Lee Pike, this guide is designed to walk those within the Transport industry through the issues relating to COVID-19 vaccines and the workplace, to assist in your understanding of whether the vaccine is mandatory for your workplace, and if not, to help you decide whether you can/should make vaccines mandatory within your workplace.

Congratulations to Insurance Partners Caroline Knight, Mark Victorsen and Matthew Baker - as well as Special Counsel John Chouris and both Holman Webb's Queensland and South Australian Insurance Groups on a selection of recent Doyle's Guide listings:

• Holman Webb Lawyers - First Tier - Leading Dust Diseases Law Firms (Defendant) - Queensland 2021

• Holman Webb Lawyers - Leading - Leading Dust Diseases Law Firms (Defendant) - South Australia 2021

• Mark Victorsen - Market Leader - Leading Dust Diseases Lawyers (Defendant) - Queensland 2021

• Matthew Baker - Recommended - Leading Dust Diseases Lawyers (Defendant) - Queensland 2021

• Caroline Knight - Preeminent - Leading Dust Diseases Lawyers (Defendant) - South Australia 2021

• John Chouris - Leading - Leading Dust Diseases Lawyers (Defendant) - South Australia 2021

In the recent decision of Fadlallah v Insurance and Care NSW (2021) NSWCATAD 304, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) found that there was no legal professional privilege in a report obtained by a workers compensation insurer’s lawyer to meet and deal with a claim for permanent impairment compensation.

This decision is a reminder that careful consideration must be given to the process of how medical experts are briefed by insurers and their lawyers.

Back in February 2020, Holman Webb published an article ‘AI and Facial Identification Technology – the Face of the Future?’, which referred to an article in the New York Times highlighting Clearview AI, and the use of the company’s facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies internationally.

At the time the Australian Parliament was considering the introduction of the Identity-matching Services Bill 2019 and Australian Passports Amendment (Identity-matching Services) Bill 2019 which would enable the Department of Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs and Trade to utilise similar facial recognition technology.

As it turns out, Holman Webb Lawyers were not the only ones taking a close look at Clearview AI. Since that time, it appears that Clearview AI was offering free software trials to numerous law enforcement agencies within Australia, some of whom have commenced their investigation into the use of the app and have been feeding visual data into the system.