Huon Aquaculture Pty Ltd v KM [2025] TASCAT 73
The Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) addressed a significant issue regarding informed consent in the context of workers’ compensation claims. The case centred on whether an independent medical examination (IME) conducted without proper consent could be used as evidence in a dispute over compensation for a workplace injury.
Forrest v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPIC 206
The New South Wales Personal Injury Commission (NSWPIC) considered whether dog walking services provided to an injured claimant fell within the definition of “treatment and care” under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (‘MAIA’). The Member held that such services could be classified as “attendant care services”.
Irfan v Western Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWSC 68
The NSW Supreme Court addressed the issue of admissibility of multiple experts in a negligence claim involving the treatment of a stroke patient. The case arose from a claim for medical negligence by the plaintiff, Mr Irfan, against a hospital regarding alleged delays in administering thrombolysis (clot-dissolving medication), and failing to administer mechanical thrombectomy (clot retrieval).
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; 139 CLR 161
Summary: The High Court of Australia established a precedent allowing injured plaintiffs to claim damages for the commercial value of gratuitous care provided by friends or relatives. Background Facts: The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident, caused by the defendant’s negligence. As a result of the accident, he was left quadriplegic, and unable to look after himself. His fiancée and family members provided essential nursing and domestic services without payment. The primary judge concluded that the plaintiff’s fiancée could not continue to care for him without paid assistance, and the plaintiff recovered damages for gratuitous care. The defendant appealed the decision on the ground that the damages awarded were excessive. There was also a cross-appeal by the plaintiff on the ground that the damages awarded were inadequate.
Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Le [2025] NSWCA 121
Mr Le, the First Respondent, was a passenger injured in a motor vehicle accident. Mr Le sustained a number of injuries and lodged a claim for personal injury benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW). Following the accident, Mr Le was diagnosed as suffering from a closed head injury, with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and amnesia. NRMA, the CTP insurer of the vehicle at fault in the accident, argued that the injury was caused by Le’s conduct in the immediate aftermath of the accident, rather than the accident itself. However, medical assessors and a review panel of the Personal Injury Commission found that the injury was caused by the accident. NRMA sought judicial review of the panel’s decision, which the primary judge rejected. NRMA then appealed.