Articles

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.

This issue examines areas of growing risk for employers: the recent Queensland Industrial Relations Commission decision in Loquias v The Star Entertainment Group, which confirms that having workplace policies is not enough – employers must actively enforce them or face vicarious liability for sexual harassment; the rise of AI in Australian workplaces and whether businesses are implementing the responsible-use frameworks regulators and courts will expect; and the Supreme Court of Western Australia’s decision in Tronox Management Pty Ltd v Cokic [No 2], a timely warning that confidentiality obligations survive employment and that LinkedIn posts can constitute actionable disclosure of confidential information. We also flag key regulatory changes taking effect from 1 July 2026.

A Queensland council refused to accept a minor change application (and declined to advise the applicable fee) effectively locking a developer out of the statutory appeals process. Following the hearing of an Originating Application, the Planning and Environment Court has considered the council’s approach to be procedurally flawed. In this article, Partner Fraser Hardman and Solicitor Eliza Burke examine what the outcome means for developers, landowners, and councils administering change applications under the Planning Act 2016 (Qld).

On an otherwise unremarkable Tuesday evening, a 23-year-old cricketer jogs back towards the nets and vaults over a fence. His foot unexpectedly clips the top of the rail, and he falls head-first to the ground. He will never walk again. The fence? Perfectly fine. No defects or irregularities. What was missing, and what has now led to an astounding $15.2 million award for damages, was a conveniently located gate. This simple omission is the centrepiece of the Victorian Supreme Court decision in Woolnough v Whittlesea City Council & Anor [2026] VSC 190.