374, 376 New South Head Road Pty Ltd v SMLXL Projects (NSW) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 886
By Stephen Aroney, Partner and Leon Chen, Associate
In 374, 376 New South Head Road Pty Ltd v SMLXL Projects (NSW) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 886, William J held that the Developer failed to establish an arguable case the Contractor. The Contractor had been placed into liquidation less than a week after the expired. The Developer claimed that its losses would have been have been indemnified by the Contractor’s insurer. However, the Court found no basis for that claim. This decision highlights the strict hurdles facing third party claims under the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW).
ASIC v Auto & General Insurance Company Limited [2024] FCA 272 and ASIC v Auto & General Insurance Company Limited [2025] FCAFC 76
By Adrian Papaianni, Partner and Leon Chen, Associate
In a significant decision for insurers and policyholders alike, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has unanimously ruled that a home and contents insurance clause requiring customers to notify their insurer “if anything changes while you’re insured with us” (the Notification Clause) is not an unfair contract term under the regime (specifically, in section 12BG of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act)).
Toon v Central Adelaide Local Health Network [2025] SADC98
By Bronwyn Ackland, Partner and Will Hudson, Associate
The recent decision in Toon v Central Adelaide Local Health Network [2025] SADC 98 required the District Court of South Australia to consider allegations of negligence in the context of emergency surgical treatment provided at a public hospital. The matter raised critical questions about standard of care, breach, causation, and the evidentiary threshold required under the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) (CLA).
Nuix Limited v Berkshire Hathaway Speciality Insurance Company [2025] FCA 1002
By David Slatyer, Partner and Tyra Zacka, Paralegal
Nuix Limited sought indemnity under two insurance policies, being their Public Offering of Securities Insurance and Directors & Officers Liability Insurance. The indemnity sought was in relation to ASIC investigations and class actions following Nuix’s 2020 Initial Public Offering. This dispute before the Federal Court of Australia concerned the retention amount applicable to multiple related claims which are aggregated under clause 5.5 of the policies.
Mason-Leonarder v Balfran Removals Pty Ltd & Anor (No2) [2025] ACTSC 363
By Lisa Quilty, Partner and Nyah Gray, Paralegal
This matter raised the question of how liability should be apportioned between the First Defendant, the Plaintiff’s employer and the Second Defendant, the occupier of the premises on which the Plaintiff was sent to work. After several days of hearing, the First and Second Defendants reached a settlement with the Plaintiff, consenting to verdict in the Plaintiff’s favour in order of $1,271,287.73. In this matter before the ACT Supreme Court, the Court had to determine the contribution of the respective Defendants to the Plaintiff’s injury.