Home > Legal Insights > Newsletters
Search
In this section
- Alerts
- Articles
- Newsletters
- Reports and Guides

Publications Library
To find our publications on a particular topic, you can use our search function in the black bar above or select a timeframe below:


Subscribe
Click here to subscribe to any of our newsletters
London Markets Bulletin

London Markets Bulletin provides our London market clients with an overview of important developments in the Australian insurance industry.

A recent report by the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee reinforces Owen J's recommendations in the HIH Royal Commission, proposing to extend the duties of care and diligence, good faith and proper purpose – which apply under the Corporations Act to directors and other officers of corporations – to include 'any other person who takes part, or is concerned, in the management of that corporation'.

The recent decision in CAT Media Pty Ltd v Allianz Australia, clarified the principles associated with the use of Calderbank offers, including that it must be a genuine offer to settle a litigation and, in order for indemnity costs to be awarded, it must be shown that it was unreasonable for the Calderbank offer to be rejected.

The decision in James Smith Page v The Central Queensland University is a strong reminder that plaintiffs must prosecute their action quickly and provide an adequate explanation for any protracted delay in failing to do so.

Click here to print out all of the articles in this edition

Previous issues:
The ACCC has recently published its fifth report on the practical implications of the tort reforms implemented by the various Australian State Governments.
An Australian High Court decision upholding the advocates' right to immunity from civil suits in respect of work done in Court and work that is 'intimately connected' with work in court has set Australia apart from the UK, New Zealand, Canada and the US.
On 21 October 2005, the High Court delivered judgement in two diving case, Vairy and Mulligan. In both cases, the plaintiff suffered devastating spinal injuries. The key issues before the Court were the content of the duty of care the Council owed the plaintiff and whether it was reasonable for the Council to have been required to prohibit or warn about the dangers.



© Minter Ellison 2008

Further Information
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 >