The Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)
By Adrian Papaianni, Partner and Victor Hoang, Senior Associate
In recent years, major Australian insurers have seen increased home insurance claims caused or contributed to by a lack of home maintenance and storm damage as cost of living pressures increase. In response, they’ve introduced new community education programs and are using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to help reduce claim rejections and avoid large payouts that can raise costs for everyone.
AAI Limited v The Owners - Strata Plan No 91086 [2025] FCAFC 6 and Insurance Australia Limited t/as CGU Insurance v Capral Limited and Fairview Architectural Pty Limited [2025] FCAFC 46
By Adrian Papaianni, Partner and Hilda Shlemon, Lawyer
An analysis of the recent Federal Court of Appeal decisions in AAI Limited v The Owners - Strata Plan No 91086 [2025] FCAFC 6 and Insurance Australia Limited t/as CGU Insurance v Capral Limited and Fairview Architectural Pty Limited [2025] FCAFC 46 and their impact when Property Damage occurs under liability policies.
The Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth)
By Louise Cantrill, Partner and Melanie Farry, Law Graduate
Commencing on 1 November 2025, the new Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth) will increase protections for elderly Australians and promote more rights-based aged care service provision. In doing so, the new legislation imposes new risks for aged care providers and insurers due to the higher standards of care and stricter regulatory oversight mechanisms that are being introduced. Aged care providers will need to closely review insurance policies and internal practices to ensure that the new legislation is complied with.
Nemes v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWSC 418
By Louise Cantrill, Partner and Melanie Farry, Law Graduate
The New South Wales Supreme Court recently made some key observations about the circumstances in which there may be more than one acceptable professional course of action and how s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) might apply in those circumstances when assessing the actions of staff at the Royal Hospital for Women at Randwick in the antenatal care of Bendeguz Nemes (“Benny”) during his delivery on 2 April 2016.
Leibbrandt v City of Joondalup [2025] WADC 31
By Rebecca Roberts, Partner and Bronte Tanna, Law Graduate
Further verification that a Defendant’s failure to follow a standard is not on its own sufficient to establish negligence and will only be a guide for the standard of reasonable care required. A Court can look beyond the standard when considering the facts of the case.
Murphy, McCarthy & Associates Pty Ltd t/as MMA Civil Contractors (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) v Zurich Australia Ltd [2025] NSWCA 131
By Nica Manosca, Associate and Megan Venus, Special Counsel
The New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissed MMA’s appeal against the rejection of a TPD insurance claim, finding no error in the primary judge’s conclusion that Mr Heron was not unlikely ever to work in his “own occupation” following a hip replacement. The Court emphasised that “occupation” must be interpreted based on the insured’s actual duties, not job titles or generic classifications.
Atkins v Hughes [2025] SADC 51
By Grant Mitchell, Partner, Juliana Marcus, Lawyer, Poppy Scaife, Paralegal
Atkins v Hughes [2025] SADC 51 demonstrates that a landlord's duty of care can be delegated to an agent, such as a property manager. However, the Court found that landlords remain legally liable for their agent’s negligent acts, as such conduct is attributed to them under the law relating to agency.
Tsiragakis v Mallet [2025] VSCA 134
By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Lidia Martinez Chavez, Lawyer
In Tsiragakis v Mallet [2025] VSCA 134, the court examined whether a coworker owes a duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric harm by inflicting self-harm through a suicide attempt. The court ultimately held that no such duty exists in these circumstances, emphasising that reasonable forseeability alone is insufficient to impose liability without a close relationship or direct involvement.
Trustees of the Christian Brothers v Colbert (a pseudonym) [2025] VSCA 122
By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Ashleigh Shankly, Lawyer
The Victorian Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to permanently stay abuse claims against the Trustees of the Christian Brothers, ruling that despite loss of evidence over 70 years, the case did not meet the threshold of 'exceptional circumstances' to prevent a fair trail. The decision reinforces that delays and challenges due to time alone are insufficient grounds to halt such proceedings.
By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Zoe Vlahogiannis, Lawyer
A snapshot of registered health practitioner misconduct in Victoria.