Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2025] HCA 53
By Tara Haas, Lawyer, Ishitao Rao, Lawyer and Tara Plumbe, Partner
The High Court of Australia has overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and allowed an appeal for businesses pursuing damages in nuisance arising from the light rail construction. In handing down its decision, the High Court has clarified the key principles for establishing private nuisance claims.
The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd v Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd trading as “Buildcorp Interiors” [2026] NSWNC 27
By Adrian Papaianni, Partner and Victor Hoang, Senior Associate
Until recently it was a long-established approach by insurers to interpret “Property Damage” within the meaning of a Public and Products Liability Policy or Contract Works Liability Policy to occur when there has been consequential damage arising from defective work and/or defective products.
Australian Retirement Trust Pty Ltd ATF Australian Retirement Trust v Buckland [2025] FCA 1563
By Tyra Zacker, Paralegal and David Slatyer Partner
The Federal Court of Australia has overturned a decision by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, confirming that strict policy wording, not retrospective medical evidence, determines when TPD benefits become payable for members of Australia Retirement Trust.
Yildirim v Car Accidental Rental Solution Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 703
By Jeyda Karagozlu, Lawyer and Emre Ozgezici, Partner
An appeal decision confirms that where a GST-registered claimant can recover input tax credits from the Australian Taxation Office, damages for a written-off vehicle must exclude the GST component, reinforcing that insurers are only liable for the claimant’s true net economic loss.
AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2
By Luke Geary, Partner and Sonya Parsons, Partner
On 11 February 2026, the High Court handed down its much-anticipated decision in AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2. The decision revisits the law of non-delegable duty of care and significantly expands the potential liability of institutions caring for children and vulnerable individuals for intentional criminal acts of their delegates if reasonable care was not taken. Following this decision, institutions and insurers should review their relevant claims portfolio to re-assess any potential exposure. To read more, our colleagues have prepared this very informative case note.
By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Zoe Vlahogiannis, Associate
A snapshot of registered health practitioner misconduct in Victoria.