Tag Archives: Life Sciences

ILN Today Post

Company directors: now is the time to put privacy risk on the Board’s agenda

Substantial amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) will come into effect on 12 March 2014.  Changes include the replacement of the existing National Privacy Principles with new Australian Privacy Principles.  The Information Commissioner will also be given much greater powers, including the imposition of civil penalty orders of up to $1.7 million for serious or repeated breaches. More…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

The Radius of Atradius: The limits of Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Section 54

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has clarified that where insurers allege fraudulent misrepresentation or non-disclosure, the court must inquire into the subjective state of mind of the maker of the statement.  Analysis of whether a person’s conduct is careless or reckless from an objective viewpoint is insufficient. In doing so, the Court of Appeal has arguably re-set the bar for fraud in its proper place by correcting the first instance decision which in effect held that honest but careless errors amounted to fraud. More…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Injury a result of an Intentional Act: No more Legal ‘Fee’ for all

Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Cross & Ors [2012] HCA 56

The recent High Court ruling in Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters v Cross & Ors[1] has determined that legal fees arising from a personal injury claim resulting from an intentional act are subject to the billing restrictions dictated by section 198D of theLegal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) (the Act) (now section 338 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW)).  The ruling confirms that such claims are analogous to those involving injury arising from an unintentional act for the purpose of limiting legal costs in actions for damages less than $100,000. More…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Joining insurer may not produce ‘mountain of gold’ (Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Malouf [2012] NSWSC 1119)

A recent NSW Supreme Court decision has again highlighted the difficulties in joining insurers to proceedings under section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) (the Act), particularly in relation to ‘claims made’ policies (for another recent example of a court rejecting a section 6 application see our update on Energize Fitness Pty Ltd v Vero Insurance Limited [2012] NSWCA 213).

In Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Malouf [2012] NSWSC 1119, Davies J held that, in the context of professionals, breach of professional duty is also likely to constitute a breach of contract (eg a lawyer’s retainer).  In such circumstances, his honour held that the ‘event’ giving rise to a claim for compensation for the purposes of section 6 is the breach of contract (ie negligent performance of the services) rather than the occurrence of loss (usually required to complete a cause of action in negligence).  Accordingly, unless the relevant policy was in effect at the time of the initial negligent conduct – unlikely in respect of claims made policies – joining an insurer under section 6 of the Act is precluded.  More…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Dentist drilled by the NSW Court of Appeal

Case review: Dean v Phung [2012] NSWCA 223

Introduction

On 30 June 2012 the NSW Court of Appeal held that unnecessary dental treatment provided by a dentist over a 12 month period amounted to trespass to the person.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court held that the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (Civil Liability Act) did not apply to the appellant’s claim, that the defence (to trespass) of consent was not available to the respondent and that the appellant was eligible for an award of exemplary damages. More…

Read full article

Who is Who Legal names Andrey Zelenin Best Lawyer in the sphere of Life Sciences in Russia

Partner and Head of Pharmaceutical Industry practice at Lidings Andrey Zelenin was named the best lawyer in the sphere of Life Sciences in Russia by the leading international legal directory Who is Who Legal.

According to the research conducted by Who is Who Legal that annually determines leading lawyers from more than 100 countries in 32 practice areas, Andrey Zelenin became the best lawyer in the area of Life Sciences which includes pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and healthcare industry, becoming the only Russian lawyer to be recognized and awarded in this field.

High level of recognition in the field stems from the firm’s professional expertise and focus on legal aspects most essential for clients from the pharmaceutical industry which Lidings offers in addition to the standard range of services in support of foreign businesses on the Russian market.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

C S v Anna Biedrzycka [2011] NSWSC 1213: Do administrative staff owe a duty of care to a patient’s sexual partners?

This case concerned a patient (LB) of a medical practice in Eastern Sydney who, due to the negligence of medical practitioners and staff, was not informed that she was HIV positive.  Unaware of her medical condition, LB had unprotected sexual intercourse with the plaintiff.  The plaintiff contracted HIV as a result.  read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Vioxx appeal successful

On 12 October 2011 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, constituted by Chief Justice Keane and Justices Bennett and Gordon JJ (their Honours) allowed an appeal of the Federal Court decision to award compensation to a claimant who claimed consumption of Vioxx caused him to have a heart attack in 2003.  read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Life Sciences Update

Lessons from Wallace v Ramsay Health Care

By Jessica Kinny and Wendy Blacker of Gadens Lawyers, Sydney

A medical practitioner’s duty to warn their patient of the risks associated with a procedure is well known in the medical field and is supported by a clear and consistent line of authority[1].  Despite this, a common feature of medical malpractice is miscommunication with the patient.  read more

 

Read full article