Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Australia
August 9 2019 Raised edge. Trip and fall. Lawsuit. The Council argues it didn't need to do more. Who was right, and why? The Court of Appeal re-examines the concept of 'obvious risk' and the need to take precautions against such a risk in Council of the City of Sydney v Bishop. Citation: Council of the City of Sydney v Bishop [2019] NSWCA 157 Jurisdiction: NSW Court of Appeal 1 Principles Pedestrians are under a duty to exercise reasonable care for their own safety.
Most of us are familiar with the causation test under Section 60 of the 1987 Act (in other words, whether the need for treatment was 'as a result of' the injury). So, what evidence is the Workers Compensation Commission able to consider in determining this question? What happens if that evidence is inconsistent with a binding Medical Assessment Certificate?
Is an Arbitrator in the Workers Compensation Commission entitled to discredit the GP's contemporaneous records in determining that a frank injury was not sustained as alleged? What are the Arbitrator's obligations, before such a finding is made, when there may be cause to question the validity of the records? The Presidential Decision of Hancock v Holman Industries Pty Ltd [2019] NSWWCCPD 16 addresses these issues.
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
