Legal Updates

The information published on this website is of a general nature and should not be construed as legal advice. Whilst we aim to provide timely, relevant and accurate information, the law may change and circumstances may differ. You should not therefore act in reliance on it without first obtaining specific legal advice.

Liability for bullying – what schools really have to do

31.05.2013

Vidal Hockless, Partner

The appeal against the decision of the judge at first instance in a claim for damages against St Patrick’s college by Ms Oyston is not controversial but is worthy of careful note by school administrators and their insurers.

Ms Oyston was a year 9 student who suffered bullying from other students at her school that resulted in episodes of self harm, suicidal ideation and mental trauma.

Redundant? Really?

30.05.2013

David Kew, Solicitor

The risks of ignoring a proper redundancy procedure, or using it to conceal the real reason for a dismissal, were starkly illustrated with the Federal Court last week sounding a warning to employers looking to manipulate a redundancy process to get rid of unwanted staff.

Occupational Health and Safety

30.05.2013

Paula Sullivan, Solicitor

As employers prepare for the transition into a new financial year, it is probably worth paying some attention to the budget and resources to be allocated to maintaining and improving safety in the workplace.

Continuity of Employment and The Common Thread

30.05.2013

Elise Croft, Senior Associate

Earlier this month, the Federal Court handed down its decision in the appeal in Cohen v iSOFT Group Pty Limited, dealing with the interpretation of employment contracts for long-term employees. The Fair Work Act 2009 did not apply to this dispute as the employee (Dr Cohen) was based primarily overseas. Broadly, the facts were as follows:

Dr Cohen had worked for SW International Systems (SWI) in Singapore from the late eighties and in 1998 entered into a new contract with them.

The Enforceability of Insurance Contracts

30.05.2013

David Kew, Solicitor, Felicity Keays, Senior Associate and Vidal Hockless, Partner

This case raised the interesting, and as yet unresolved, issue as to the extent to which an insurer can define the scope of an insurance policy to remove certain matters from scrutiny under section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act (Cth) 1984, thus allowing it to deny a claim without being required to prove prejudice or a causal connection to the loss.

A court must ask itself:

Liability for bullying – what schools really have to do

Redundant? Really?

Occupational Health and Safety

Continuity of Employment and The Common Thread

The Enforceability of Insurance Contracts

Contact Us

Get our Newsletter