In Rhodin v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2019] ACTSC 207, the ACT Supreme Court delivered a substantial verdict against Coles in favour of a delicatessen attendant following a slip and fall on ice in a seafood cool room.
In Ayre v Swan [2019] NSWCA 2020, the New South Wales Court of Appeal increased a contributory negligence finding to 80% because of the plaintiff’s grossly excessive speed.
In Paul v Ashcroft Supa IGA Orange Pty Ltd [2019] NSW DC 101 (5 April 2019) an apprentice butcher in host employment was awarded $578,689 following a slip and fall on sausage mince.
In Capar v SPG Investments Pty Ltd (t/a Lidcombe Power Centre) (No 5) [2019] NSWSC 507, the New South Wales Supreme Court reinforced the principle that, except in unusual circumstances, occupiers and employers will not be liable for injuries to security guards where the injury is caused by criminals.
In Williams v Metcash Trading Ltd [2019] NSWCA 94 (3 May 2019), the New South Wales Court of Appeal unanimously overturned a verdict in favour of Metcash in a distribution centre claim brought by a picker.
A horrific accident in the Northern Territory has given rise to a charge against Woolworths Ltd, brought by the Work Health Authority (WHA), for a breach of section 32 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act (NT).
In Carter v Hastings River Greyhound Racing Club [2019] NSWSC 780, the Supreme Court of New South Wales delivered a verdict in favour of a local greyhound racing club. The claim was made by a volunteer who was hit by a mechanical lure travelling at over 60 kilometres per hour.
In Council of the City of Sydney v Bishop [2019] NSWCA, the New South Wales Court of Appeal overturned a $750,000 award in favour of a plaintiff in a footpath trip and fall case.
In Deans v Maryborough Christian Education Foundation Ltd [2019] QCA 73, the Court of Appeal has confirmed the trial judge’s decision that a school was not liable for a teacher’s slip on a grape.This win for the employer demonstrates that not every slip and fall at work results in a positive liability case.
Injured workers often apply out of time for review of insurers’ decisions in statutory workers’ compensation claims on the basis of ‘special circumstances’. But what really constitutes ‘special circumstances’? A recent Court of Appeal decision clarifies the position.
In December 2017, we published an article considering how courts in the United States and the United Kingdom had treated Uber drivers – that is, whether they were considered employees or independent contractors. Since then, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has handed down a decision that suggests that Uber drivers, at least in Victoria, might actually be independent contractors.
Uber now operates around the world and has annual revenue of about US$6.5 billion (and a valuation of about US$80 billion), in no small part thanks to the hundreds of thousands of people it calls its ‘driver partners’. But are ‘driver partners’ employees or independent contractors?