A cyclist struck an unlit Council barricade before dawn. The Court of Appeal considered when a public authority’s conduct crosses the higher threshold imposed by section 36.
Case Notes
Fitzgerald v Workers’ Compensation Regulator: Non-party disclosure and medical records
The Regulator sought 22 years of a worker’s Medicare and PBS history. The QIRC considered direct relevance and the limits of non-party disclosure.
Bullock v Wraight: Surveillance, credibility, and damages in a motor vehicle injury claim
Surveillance footage showed a motor vehicle accident plaintiff undertaking activities said to conflict with her reported limitations. The Court of Appeal considered credibility, expert evidence, and damages.
Ford v Nominal Defendant: Proper Inquiry and Search for an Unidentified Vehicle
A motorcyclist did not chase a ute after timber fell from it because he did not realise he was injured. The Court of Appeal considered what “proper inquiry and search” actually required.
USM Events Pty Ltd v James: Reasonable Precautions and Sporting Event Liability
A last-minute change to a Gold Coast triathlon put runners and racing wheelchairs on the same course. Was separating them through a narrow S-bend a reasonable precaution?
Willmot v Queensland: Historical Child Abuse Claims and Permanent Stays
More than 50 years after the alleged events, could Ms Willmot’s historical abuse claims still receive a fair trial? The High Court considered delay, lost evidence, and permanent stays.
Kathi v Workers’ Compensation Regulator: When a work-related aggravation has resolved
Mr Kathi continued to experience disabling symptoms, but was his accepted work-related injury still responsible? The QIRC considered the distinction between a resolved aggravation and an ongoing underlying condition.
CCIG Investments v Schokman: When Is an Employer Vicariously Liable for an Employee’s Conduct?
When does an employee’s wrongful act fall within the course or scope of their employment? The High Court considered the connection required before vicarious liability will arise.
Tapp v Australian Bushmen’s Campdraft: When Is an Injury an Obvious Risk?
Four riders fell, an experienced competitor warned that the arena was unsafe, and the event continued. The High Court considered whether the resulting injury was truly an obvious risk of campdrafting.
Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service: Future Home Care and the Compensatory Principle
Can an injured person claim the higher cost of receiving future care at home? The High Court considered reasonableness, mitigation, and the compensatory purpose of damages.