The judgement arising from ASIC's recent prosecution against Peter Drake and two other directors of LM Investment Management Ltd (LMIM), in the Federal Court decision of Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) v Drake (No. 2)  FCA1552 (ASIC v Drake) offers a useful guide to insurers when defending claims against directors and officers as to how to identify potential weaknesses in a claimant's case.
In this article we discuss a recent Tasmanian Supreme Court Judgement which serves as a reminder of the pivotal principles applied in common law claims for personal injury and also of the inherent danger and ongoing risk and exposure to employers who utilise quad bikes in the work place.
A recent decision by the District Court of Western Australia is likely to have significant repercussions for head contractors who elect not to exercise supervision over a work site, even where they delegate responsibility to competent sub-contractors.
The recent Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal Decision of Rakich v Bounce Australia Pty Ltd is a rare example of a plaintiff's recovery of damages for personal injury failing due to the operation of the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (volenti).
Directors who fail to consider climate-related risks may be liable in the future for breaching the duties of care and diligence they owe to their companies.
In the current debate around clean energy finance and the role of coal-fired power stations in maintaining energy security, the process of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one option under consideration for facilitating 'clean coal'. As a relatively new technology, the installation and operation of CCS projects creates novel risks and, as the perennial 'canaries in the coalmine', insurers are at the forefront of assessing those risks.
The recent Victorian Supreme Court case of Victorian WorkCover Authority v O'Brien  VSC 68 affirms the relevant factors when assessing the reasonableness of rejecting a Calderbank offer.