Summary of article by UK legal academic Gerald Swaby entitled “Blurring distinctions: Should innocent insureds be tarred with the same brush as their fraudulent agents? (Insurance Law Journal April 2013 Vol 24 No. 1).

A husband and wife go through an acrimonious separation. One spouse acts violently against the other by burning the house down. Should the victim forfeit his/her insurance claim?

Mandatory notification has been in place for three years now, and, if we look beyond the encouraging rhetoric about improving patient safety, the scheme has kicked up some surprises, including last year's 40 per cent surge nationally in the number of reports made, which, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) has, so far, been unable to explain.

While the increase might encourage belief in the scheme fulfilling its goals of ensuring patient safety, we should aslo bear in mind that the rise also increases the chances that health practitioners, who take the serious step of making a report, may face legal action when they do so. If we drill down into the 40 per cent increase, we find that the most significant contribution comes from Queensland where the number of reports has almost tripled, rising from 85 to 220.The increase is even more troubling because health practitioners making mandatory reports about colleagues are not absolutely protected from defamation. Put simply, doctors reporting colleagues, and members of the public reporting health practitioners, can be sued for defamation.

Does a plaintiff’s grandmother owe her grandchild a duty of care?

In the case of Hoffman v Boland (2013) NSWCA 158, the NSW Court of Appeal was split as to whether a duty of care arose in the circumstances of a domestic situation involving permanent injury to an infant - but the Court agreed after a lengthy opinion that there had been no breach and overturned the primary Judge's decision.

Unlike the Bible, when David takes on Goliath in the real world, Goliath almost always wins. Not any more. Enter the new species of litigation – the class action and the litigation funder. As we become more risk averse to litigation, yet continue to live in an age of consumerism where goods and services are mass produced, the idea of an army of Davids is emerging.

Class actions are a species of litigation emanating from the US, where individuals joined together to take legal action against a company or Government. They are becoming more common in Australia, especially following tort reforms in 2002 and are referred to as ‘representative proceedings’ which can be brought by virtue of the Representative Group Proceedings Act 1991.

Chand v Zurich Insurance

In a judgment handed down in the NSW Supreme Court, the Court was asked to determine whether an action for recovery of repair costs may be sought by an insurer, under its right of subrogation, after the settlement of recovery of rental car costs had been already finalised by consent judgment.