Articles

When a worker ignores the designated site entry, takes a shortcut to avoid a COVID-19 queue, and is seriously injured – who is to blame? The recent decision in Stathakis v Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1113 answered that question plainly, finding the head contractor had not breached its duty of care and confirming that clear and consistently communicated site access procedures can be decisive in defeating a negligence claim.

The Queensland Court of Appeal’s decision in Dennison v Brisbane City Council has confirmed that s 36 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), Queensland’s key statutory protection for public authorities facing liability claims, applies to common law negligence, not just breach of statutory duty. However, despite Brisbane City Council being able to avail itself of the s 36 defence, the Court found the Council failed to meet the low standard prescribed by that provision because it failed to comply with both its own internal policies and guidelines and applicable external industry standards, which mandated the taking of certain precautions to address the subject risk. In this article, Partner Milton Latta discusses what Dennison means for insurers and underwriters of public authorities, and for any parties involved in injury claims involving public authorities, from a claims management and risk assessment perspective.

Carter Newell’s Planning and Environment team has secured a significant win for quarry operator Cordwell Resources in the Queensland Planning and Environment Court, with the Court confirming that a minor change to a development approval will not constitute “substantially different development” simply because fixed plant is introduced into an existing processing operation. The decision also provides important guidance on the interaction between state development approvals and Commonwealth EPBC processes, confirming that EPBC delays cannot be used to refuse a change application. For operators across the extractive industry, resources sector, and renewable energy industry whose approvals may be affected by plant changes, EPBC obligations, or currency period issues, this decision is essential reading. Contact Partner Fraser Hardman or Associate Eliza Burke to discuss how these findings may apply to your project.

In Soulos [2026] NSWCA 185, the NSW Court of Appeal upheld a $1.39 million psychiatric injury award after a caseworker recognised her former client in a two-minute documentary segment, with neither publicly named. The result turned on a trial concession the employer could not undo on appeal. Partner Julie Bowker, Special Counsel Aristea Friedrich and Law Graduate Gabrielle Macready explain how the decision is a timely reminder that brief and indirect media exposure can generate substantial liability, and that how a matter is run can be as consequential as the underlying facts.

When a lawyer is engaged to advise on a termination, can their state of mind become relevant to an adverse action claim? The Full Federal Court’s decision in Totino v Metro Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 120 says not necessarily, but the line depends on the nature of their contribution, not just the extent of their involvement.

Does adopting a thorough internal risk management policy expose an organisation to greater legal liability? In MacLean v Richmond Valley Council, the NSW Court of Appeal gave organisations, and the insurers who cover them, a clear answer: no. In this article, Partner Milton Latta examines the decision and explains why courts will always assess breach against an objective standard of reasonable care, not against an organisation’s own internal benchmarks.

AI tools are now routinely used by non-lawyers to review contracts and assess legal risk but the dangers are often underestimated. In this article, Partner Mark Kenney and Solicitor Aaron Cherniwchan identify the key risks in-house teams and business leaders need to understand: from confidentiality breaches and AI-generated misinformation to the unintentional waiver of legal professional privilege and gaps in professional indemnity insurance cover. The article also sets out the practical safeguards every organisation should have in place before AI becomes a standard part of their legal review process.

This issue examines the Federal Court’s dismissal of MacInnes’ defamation claim against Rebel Wilson; key reforms to the general protections framework in the Fair Work Commission, including new rules on legal representation at conciliation conferences; and the federal government’s announcement of a new Fair Work Court, already drawing fire from employer groups.

In Ward v Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd, the NSW Supreme Court confirmed that where a host employer assumes full practical control of a labour hire worker, vicarious liability transfers to the host – not the labour hire company. Perhaps of even more significance, the decision also confirms that an employer’s non-delegable duty of care is strict: if a worker fails to take reasonable care, the employer is in breach, regardless of any personal fault on its part. For public liability insurers and corporate insureds, the case provides a clear framework for risk assessment and early investigation strategy in labour hire injury claims. Milton Latta and Alex McGrath of Carter Newell examine the key issues and their practical implications.

In Boensch v Bingham (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 529, the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed all six professional negligence claims brought against a defendant solicitor, providing a timely restatement of the parameters of a solicitor’s duty of care. The decision serves as a practical reminder that clearly defining the scope of the retainer, reasonably relying on counsel’s advice, and maintaining thorough file documentation are among the most effective safeguards against claims of this kind. In this article, Partner Mark Brookes and Paralegal Chloe Barry analyse the Court’s reasoning and identify the key takeaways for legal practitioners.

A plaintiff who proves that a defendant breached a legal duty does not automatically succeed – they must also prove that the breach caused their loss. It is here that many claims fail. Partners Greg Stirling and Mark Brookes examine the “but for” test and what it means for assessing liability in practice.

Generative AI can draft a submission in seconds, but it can also cite cases that don’t exist, misdate ones that do, and invoke irrelevant statutes. When exactly that happened before Deputy President Searle in the NSW Personal Injury Commission, the consequences went well beyond the appeal itself. This article examines Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd v Clark Chesaites [2026] NSWPICPD 22 and what it means for insurers when AI-generated material enters legal proceedings, and what steps must be taken before it does.