Insurance in MOtion January 2026

Welcome to Insurance in MOtion! We're excited to share the latest insights and updates with you.
February 10 2026

Plaintiff Seeking Personal Injury Damages Required to Provide Details of Her Post-Accident Holidays

Clements v Margalit & Ors [2025] QDC 197

By David Slatyer, Partner and Oliver Crowther-Wilkinson, Law Clerk

Can a claimant’s overseas holidays and social media posts undermine a personal injury claim? This recent decision shows how courts are compelling disclosure where post-accident activities don’t match the injuries alleged.

Read more here

Duty of Care in Early Pregnancy Presentations

Hartfield v Calvary Healthcare ACT Ltd (No 4)[2025] ACTSC 488 (31 October 2025)

By Bronwyn Ackland, Partner and Poppy Scaife, Paralegal

A recent ACT Supreme Court decision underscores how discharge decisions in early pregnancy presentations can expose hospitals to liability, even where causation limits recovery.

Read more here

Seminal Authority on Assessing Damages in SA

Motor Accident Commission v Raccanello & Ors [2025] SASCA 146 (22 December 2025)

By Bronwyn Ackland, Partner and Cindy Ting, Special Counsel

The South Australian Court of Appeal has delivered an important decision clarifying the proper assessment of damages in CTP injury claims, significantly reducing a $2.2 million award and reaffirming settled principles on causation, per quod claims and recoverable losses.

Read more here

Court Declines to Remove Long-Standing Family Lawyers

Kurtz & Son Development (Nominees) Pty Ltd v Jankie [2025] VSC 817

By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Rory MacDonald, Associate

A recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision arising from a long-running family trust dispute highlights how difficult it is to remove a party’s chosen lawyers for alleged conflicts of interest. The Court confirmed that suspicion or the prospect of a lawyer giving evidence is not enough. Clear, concrete conflict must be shown.

Read more here

Judges Bias?

Victor Susman v Lindy Allen [2025] VSC 276

By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Ashleigh Shankly, Lawyer

The Victorian Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the high threshold for judicial recusal, rejecting an application alleging apprehended bias based on a judge’s case management and interlocutory rulings. The Court held that adverse decisions alone will rarely establish bias and that a fair-minded observer would view the judge’s conduct as impartial.

Read more here

‘Service’ Pursuant to Section 28LT of the Wrongs Act 1958

Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery Services Pty Ltd v Nichols [2025] VSCA 328

By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Jon Gillard, Senior Associate

The Victorian Court of Appeal has clarified when service of Part VBA certificates under the Wrongs Act is effective, holding that emailing documents to a respondent’s solicitors who filed a Notice of Appearance did not constitute valid statutory service. The decision reinforces the distinction between court rule service and service required by statute.

Read more here