Tag Archives: liability

Landmark ruling in Parkerville bushfire litigation

The Supreme Court of Western Australia has found a network authority’s contractor and a private landowner liable in both negligence and nuisance for property damage arising out of the 2014 Parkerville bushfire. Matt McDonald led a Hall & Wilcox team acting for a large group of insured plaintiffs and their insurers in two of the four proceedings, that were heard concurrently.

Read more

Read full article

Insurable Interest – Issue 46


The future is super

Mr Latz was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2016. It was accepted by all parties that Mr Latz’s illness was caused by Amaca’s negligence.

Read more

Read full article

Coward v Stephenson

On 25 May 2018, Judge Levy handed down a decision in favour of the insurer, who was joined as a defendant to the proceeding under section 119 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (Act).

Read more

Read full article

Insurable Interest – Issue 45


When you know, you know

Builder’s liability claim excluded – considered a ‘professional service’

The rules weren’t made to be broken

Phone fail

That’s not fair!


The proof is in the policy

The end of expert bootstrapping in Queensland

Read more

Read full article

The concept of “gross fault” and the exemption of liability of a city following the re-ignition of a fire

By Chantal Noël, from our Insurance Law Practice Group.

September 27, 2017 — In Intact, compagnie d’assurances c. Ville de Montréal (2017 QCCS 3753) rendered on June 26, 2017, the Superior Court had to determine whether the City of Montreal firefighters had committed a gross fault, thus preventing the city from invoking the exemption of liability provided for in section 47 of the Fire Safety Act (CQLR c S-3.4).

Read full article

Insurable Interest – Issue 43


To see or not to see
‘Yes’…then no
Trampoline park dodges appeal
When professional is unprofessional
Insurer must cover burnt out brothel with Comancheros affiliations
Read full article
ILN Today Post

Vicarious liability

When are exhibitors responsible for the unexpected actions of their employees? Mike Tremeer, Senior Associate at Fladgate LLP, sheds some light on the matter by examining a recent case.

For many years, businesses have grappled with the issue of being held responsible for their employees’ actions. Often, responsibility can be assumed – an employee placed at the box office selling tickets is accepted to be acting as ‘the face’ of the business. Accordingly, the employer is expected to be accountable for the actions of the employee – including offering refunds and other remedies should the employee make an error. However, when the employee’s actions stray outside of normal day-to-day duties, will the employer be responsible, or can they distance themselves from the consequences?

Read More

Read full article

Surgery leads to paraplegia and liability

The Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the duty of care owed by an orthopaedic surgeon and anaesthetist to a patient during an operative procedure in Hobson v Northern Sydney Local Health District [2017] NSWSC 589.

Mr Hobson suffered from Noonan syndrome, a genetic disorder that prevents normal development of various body parts. The development of Mr Hobson’s chest was affected by the syndrome and he suffered from severe lordoscoliosis (backward and lateral curvature of the spine) resulting in breathing difficulties which required surgical intervention. It was determined that two separate surgical procedures would be required.

Read full article

Liability for violation of personal data processing regulations – new offence matters

New amendments introduced by the Federal law dated 07.02.2017 № 13-FZ (hereinafter – “Law № 13-FZ”) and effective as of 1 July 2017 provide for increased liability for violating personal data processing legislation (hereinafter – “PD”). The amendments are made into art. 13.11 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – “AOC”) and introduce new administrative offences. The powers to initiate administrative liability proceedings for this type of offences have been assigned to the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media of the Russian Federation (Roskomnadzor).
The Law № 13-FZ establishes separate administrative offences for violating personal data legislation, inter alia, for the following cases:
  • Processing of PD without properly executed consent of the person the PD refers to – fine up to max. RUB 75,000;
  • Processing of PD incompatible with the purpose of relevant PD collection, or processing of PD if not allowed by the current legislation – fine up to max. RUB 50,000;
  • Failure by the PD operator to secure physical safety of data carrying devices – fine up to max. RUB 50,000;
Read full article

Your car gets stolen while it’s in the shop: is the shopkeeper liable?

May 5, 2016 — That question was at the core of the recent decision of the Court of Quebec in Polycarpe c. John Scotti Automotive ltée. In this case, Plaintiff’s Jaguar was stolen while it was parked in the yard of the dealer, John Scotti Automotive ltée.

Read full article