Sitemap

• Home
• About Us
  • Our Values
  • Client Care
  • Our Awards
  • Certification
• Services
  • Insurance Solutions
    • Employers Liability
      • Work Injury Damages (NSW)
      • 151Z Recoveries (NSW)
      • Compensation Claims (NSW)
      • Employment Law and Workplace Relations
      • Employers Liability (QLD)
      • Employers Liability – Workers Compensation (VIC)
    • General Insurance
      • Liability
      • Property
      • Motor
      • Travel
      • Accident & Health
      • Marine
      • Fraud & Investigations
    • Life Insurance, Superannuation & Financial Advice
      • Dispute Resolution
      • Transactions, Products & Regulation
    • Trade Credit Insurance
  • Commercial Solutions
    • Commercial Disputes & Litigation
    • Transactions & Commercial & Financial Advisory
    • Insolvency
    • Trade Credit Insurance
    • Trade Credit Recoveries
    • Regulatory
    • Property
    • Employment Law & Workplace Relations
  • Banking & Lender Solutions
    • Transactions & Financial Advisory
    • Lender Services
    • Insolvency
• People
• Community
  • Supported Charities
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Reconciliation Action Plan
  • Our Focus on Sustainability
  • Our Scholarships
• Publication Hub
  • TurkAlerts & Bulletins
  • Guides
    • Turks Hire Car Motor Guide
    • Exempt Workers Guide
    • Workers Compensation
• News
• Careers
  • Careers at Turks
  • Supporting You
  • Current Opportunities
  • Graduates & Students
• Contact
• TurksFocus Login

Bulletins & Newsletters

• Home
  • Publications
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - April 2024
      • Discontinuing proceedings has no effect on the determination of permanent impairment once a MAC is issued
      • Employer and third-party contractor escape liability where worker’s credibility and expert reports rejected in evidence
      • Establishing facts critical in awarding finding in negligence
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - April 2025
      • Dangers of a wine cellar: Assessing liability between a working director, a head contractor and the occupier of a premises
      • Different approaches for asymptomatic pre-existing psychiatric conditions?
      • Employer vicariously liable for the casual act of negligence of an unidentified worker
      • Evidence required to support a greater than 10% section 323 deduction
      • Legislative Update
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - August 2024
      • Employer’s vicarious liability for the actions of its employees confirmed
      • NSW District Court clarifies the disputes that the Personal Injury Commission can determine when a party resides in a different State
      • The importance of a ‘claim’ prior to an assessment of impairment in the Personal Injury Commission
      • The ‘Scheme Modernisation’ Changes to Victoria’s Workers Comensation Laws - will they have the desired impact?
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - December 2024
      • High Court allows recovery of $1.4 million in damages for psychiatric injury caused by breach of employment contract by Victorian-based employer
      • The roads taken: Establishing real and substantial connection for journey claims
      • quantification of a workers ability to earn in suitable employment
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - February 2025
      • Choose your path wisely – can a person rely on both the ‘worker’ and ‘deemed worker’ provisions to establish an entitlement to compensation?
      • Member exercises jurisdiction to determine worker's WPI where no offer is made by insurer
      • Section 11A: Reasonable action and third parties
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - July 2024
      • Deemed date of injury in disease cases – which date should you apply?
      • Employer granted leave to raise un-notified issues on appeal
      • Presidential decision confirms worker did not make a claim for compensation within the legislated time frames
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - June 2024
      • Employer negligence for psychological injury – foreseeability of risk and duty of care
      • Negligence: the critical step of proving causation
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - March 2025
      • Can 'Working Directors' recover compensation?
      • Potential prejudice to employer caused by delay in progressing a work injury damages claim not grounds to Strike Out a Pre Filing Statement
      • Thorough clinical records crucial in successfully disputing injured body parts
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - May 2024
      • Calculation of PIAWE – absence from work while in receipt of weekly payments does not constitute a ‘period of unpaid leave.’
      • Consent orders and judgements: their role in avoiding liability for impairment stemming from subsequent injuries
      • The meaning of ‘discipline’ when applying the section 11A(1) defence
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - November 2024
      • A new way forward for assessable deductions for pre-existing impairment?
      • Substantial delay by injured worker no bar to proceedings – s151D (2) Workers Compensation Act 1987
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - October 2024
      • Calculating economic loss in work injury damages claims
      • Lump sum claims for psychological injuries - clarification of the steps for determining whether/how to make a deduction for a pre-existing condition
      • Wearing Two Hats! – Working Directors and Contributory Negligence
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - September 2024
      • A reminder about evidence in the Personal Injury Commission
      • Proceed with caution - Certificates of capacity
      • The importance of corroborating medical evidence in disputing injury, causation and aggravation injuries
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - March 2024
      • Reasonableness of disciplinary investigations - section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987
      • The main contributing factor test where causation is multifactorial
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - February 2024
      • Employer successful in s11A defence regarding vaccine mandate
      • Review of section 323 deductions for primary psychological injuries
      • Worker successfully claims compensation for injury caused by COVID-19 vaccine
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - December 2023
      • Dog attack injury while working from home held to be in the course of employment
      • Intent an essential ingredient of the ‘serious and wilful’ misconduct defence
      • Successful section 11A defence- COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - November 2023
      • Medical Assessors and the exercise of clinical judgement]
      • PIC considers what constitutes a ‘medical dispute’ for the purposes of referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of WPI
      • The Court of Appeal upholds a Deed of Release for all injuries
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - October 2023
      • An extreme case? ‘Baseline’ increase to General Damages in the Dust Diseases Tribunal
      • Helping a broken down car may be in the course of employment
      • The Line Between Reasonable Management and Bullying
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - September 2023
      • Review of the application of s322A
      • The High Court re-visits vicarious liability and scope of employment in novel circumstances’
      • The Personal Injury Commission as an expert tribunal
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - September 2023
      • Review of the application of s322A
      • The High Court re-visits vicarious liability and scope of employment in novel circumstances’
      • The Personal Injury Commission as an expert tribunal
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - August 2023
      • Hearing loss during period of self-employment not deductible under s323
      • Hearing loss during period of self-employment not deductible under s323
      • Presidential decision examines the section 289A and Anshun estoppel principles
      • Working From Home - Where Does an Employer’s Liability End?
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - July 2023
      • A Slip of the Hand
      • Appeal Panel declines to make deduction for impairment resulting from a secondary psychological injury
      • Employment not substantial contributing factor to fatal quad bike incident
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - June 2023
      • Deteriorating into not MMI – the impact of a Medical Assessment on a worker’s suitability for assessment
      • Presidential decision on the application of the transitional provisions relating to lump sum compensation
      • The Standard of Proof: Tribunal finds in favour of plaintiff despite not being able to give direct evidence of exposure
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - May 2023
      • Is the claimant a ‘worker’? - The approach taken by the High Court in Jamsek and Personnel Contracting applies to oral contracts
      • Receipt of damages from third party bars worker’s compensation claim
      • Unapproved shopping spree; journey claim rejected
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - April 2023
      • Employer liable for failure to inspect for manufacturer design changes that increase injury risk
      • Need more time to appeal: What is considered?
      • PIC maintains decision that actions of the employer were ‘not reasonable’ 
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - March 2023
      • Court of Appeal confirms culpable company director personally liable to reimburse insurance fund
      • Industrial Deafness claims: Impairment from subsequent hearing loss can be excluded in certain circumstances
      • Recent cases regarding the distinction between employees and independent contractors, and whether the ‘gig economy’ blurs the line
      • Work capacity decisions and the importance of suitably qualified expert evidence
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - February 2023
      • Appeal successful after wrong test applied
      • Federal jurisdiction of the Personal Injury Commission dependant on the power it exercises
      • The Supreme Court remits matter to PIC: the need for critical review of NSW Guidelines in MAP Decisions
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - December 2022
      • Get it right the first time
      • Teacher awarded compensation for psychological injury over implementation of COVID-19 vaccine mandate
      • The Personal Injury Commission and the exercise of federal jurisdiction
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - November 2022
      • Injuries sustained whilst working from home
      • The Respondent bears the responsibility to establish if the effects of an injury have ceased
      • Which Court and why?
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - October 2022
      • Deemed Worker Provisions and the significance of uncontested evidence
      • Keeping an open mind about therapeutic treatment
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - September 2022
      • Deductible proportion for psychological impairment - evidence of pre-2002 rateable impairment required
      • Employer not liable for worksite injury – importance of who is actually in control
      • PIC closely examines and ultimately dismisses worker’s PIAWE evidence
    • Employers Liability Newsletter August 2022
      • 35% WPI to 0% WPI: the value of non-medical evidence in WPI disputes
      • Can criminal conduct result in a workers compensation claim?
      • The importance of reliable evidence in establishing a consequential injury
    • Employers Liability Newsletter July 2022
      • Late, but no cigar – just how late is too late to rely on the service of expert evidence?
      • SIRA Reduces Surgical Fees
      • The Importance of Work Capacity Decisions (WCDs)
      • The importance of preparation: an analysis of a workers compensation claim
    • Employers Liability Newsletter June 2022
      • Applying Section 65A(4) to prevent the aggregation of impairments
      • Breaking Bad: Crime doesn’t pay
      • Worker/Deemed Worker: An Update to the Turks Guide
    • Employers Liability Newsletter May 2022
      • Addressing a lump sum compensation claim that includes a 0% WPI body part
      • Complexity of Disease Claims
      • Injuries on third party premises - employer’s duty is not absolute but to take reasonable care
      • Personal Injury Commission – Key Rule Changes
      • Personal Injury Commission – Key Rule Changes
      • Personal Injury Commission – Key Rule Changes
      • When an injured person is in the course of employment around the clock
    • Employers Liability Newsletter April 2022
      • Admission and Cause of Action – He who asserts must prove
      • Employer’s duty of care is not ‘absolute’ but ‘reasonable’ – Lending a helping hand on work sites
      • Pathology important in determining material contribution to need for treatment
      • State Insurance and Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2022
    • Employers Liability Newsletter March 2022
      • Breach of duty of care and causation
      • High Court clarifies how to determine employee versus contractor relationship
      • Is it possible to rely on reports from two different IMEs in proceedings brought before the Commission?
    • Employers Liability Newsletter February 2022
      • Consequential Injuries - Does a worker need evidence of diagnosis/pathology?
      • Duty of care. Does it end?
      • Worker and Deemed Worker
    • Employers Liability Newsletter December 2021
      • My Medical Practitioner Rules - are psychologists medical practitioners?
      • When does a new vehicle constitute medical treatment?
      • Worker’s evidence not accepted
    • Employers Liability Newsletter November 2021
      • Employer Successfully Defends Work Injury Damages Claim Arising From Alleged Bullying & Harassment
      • The importance of contemporaneous medical evidence
      • Workplace Laws and COVID-19
    • Employers Liability Newsletter October 2021
      • A review – when does the Personal Injury Commission have jurisdiction to award benefits under section 38 of the 1987 Act?
      • Section 11A (1) defence: what evidence is required to establish ‘reasonable action’
      • Section 78 notices and their importance when raising disputes
    • Life Insurance Bulletin - April 2022
      • AFCA confirms the continued importance of up to date medical definitions in trauma policies
      • AFCA finds no misleading or deceptive conduct by insurer and trustee in issuing group life cover with ‘Limited Cover’
      • FCA affirms AFCA’s broad jurisdiction to deal with superannuation complaints
      • FCA imposes penalty on trustee for misleading conduct towards fund members
      • FSC to ban exclusions and restrictive definitions based on occupational classifications
      • Note from the Editor - April 2022
    • Life Insurance Bulletin - October 2021
      • Note from the editor - October 2021
      • Court finds trustee, and not insurer, liable for life insurance cover that had ceased under the PYS changes
      • The LICOP 2.0… the wait is almost over
      • ASIC identifies areas of focus in relation to TPD Insurance
      • Proposed enhancements to the Unfair Contract Terms Regime: What you need to know
      • New Breach Reporting Obligations: ASIC Guidance
      • VCAT considers the definition of ‘domestic partners’
      • AFCA finds insurer properly exercised its right to significantly increase premium rates
      • Financial Advice: AFCA determines customer suffered no loss despite inappropriate insurance policy recommendation
    • Life Insurance & Superannuation Bulletin - December 2019
      • What's happening here and now? December 2019
      • AFCA Group – Avoidance by later in time insurer
      • Crossing the “important and clear line” between general and personal advice
      • TPD - Delay in Assessing Claims
      • TPD - Hearne v Street Orders No longer Necessary
      • TPD - Imperfect Decline Reasoning
      • ASIC Report 663 on TPD – Analysis and Implications
      • Extending Unfair Contract Terms to Life Insurance Contracts
      • The Financial Services Reform Roadmap
    • ASIC Report - Mandatory claims and disputes reporting - commissions set to stay a little longer
    • Binding Death Benefit Nomination Deemed Valid Despite Allegation of Duress and Coercion
    • Circumstantial Silence by Trustee Deemed Misleading and Deceptive Conduct
    • Court Rules on Offset Provisions
    • Court Scrutinises Insurer’s Decision
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - April 2019
      • Challenging the delegate's decision on grounds for appeal from AMS determination
      • Lack of diagnosis no bar to a finding of consequential injury
      • Performance Appraisal for s11A Defence
      • Reinstatement of injured workers
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - April 2020
      • COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures) Act 2020
      • Mincing words: Contract clauses which seek to exclude liability for injuries in labour-hire situations
      • Section 67 compensation: No more than the sum of its particulars?
      • WCC and SIRA updates
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - April 2021
      • Predicting the unpredictable: deduction for ‘contingencies’ in work injury damages claims
      • NSWCA considers plain meaning of medical assessment referral
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - August 2019
      • Finding of total loss of earning capacity despite residual physical capacity
      • No right of appeal where $5,000 threshold not satisfied
      • Reforms to simplify dispute resolution system for injured road users and workers claiming compensation
      • Short Shots - August 2019
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - December 2019
      • Challenges to Indemnity Costs Orders in the Dust Diseases Tribunal
      • Judgment entered in the interest of the Insurer
      • To assume or not to assume - WCC says do neither
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - December 2020
      • Consequential conditions - Legal principles re-affirmed
      • Expert evidence
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - February 2019
      • All the latest changes and commencement dates - February 2019
      • Case notes on AMS referrals and the restriction to one assessment…does section 39 apply?
      • Respondent acted reasonably suspending weekly benefits pursuant to section 48A
      • Work Injury Damages: A timely reminder about strict timeframes
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - February 2021
      • A new beginning: The Personal Injury Commission commences 1 March 2021
      • Authorities affirmed: relevant tests for injury ‘arising out of’ employment
      • NSWCA rules on historical indexation when applying s82A
      • No liability for employer of security guard injured at third party’s premises
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - January 2019
      • Criminal prosecution of employer
      • The latest changes and commencement dates - January 2019
      • Worker loses the race but wins the case
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - July 2019
      • Dispute on Work Capacity Decision determined by the Workers Compensation Commission
      • Injury on journey to obtain medical treatment establishes real and substantial connection
      • Notional assessment of damages in recovery proceedings does not bind worker in damages claim
      • Stop press
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - June 2019
      • When relocation is a reasonable thing to do
      • Playing the long game: section 11A success
      • Working on scaffolding: A reminder for employers
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - March 2020
      • Cannabis trial falls within definition of Medical Treatment
      • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic – Considerations for Your Workplace
      • Coronavirus in the workplace - is the employer liable
      • Courts and Tribunals - COVID-19
      • Pursuing recoveries against negligent third parties: a success story
      • The Personal Injury Commission – Proposed legislation
      • What Happens When an Employee is Injured Whilst Working at Home?
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - March 2021
      • Application of weight of expert evidence confirmed
      • Journey or course of employment?
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - May 2019
      • Claims for 'back pay' following application of section 39
      • Employer not liable where third party fully responsible for breach
      • It's Election Time
      • Payment under deed does not damage claim for workers compensation benefits
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - May 2021
      • Retrospective reinstatement in the Dust Diseases Tribunal: How to preserve damages
      • Section 323 deductions and WPI thresholds
      • The McDougall review – a possibility of further legislative reform
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - November 2019
      • A day at the races
      • Reality TV contestant found to be a ‘worker’
      • What constitutes disciplinary action under section 11A(1)?
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - November 2020
      • Journey claims – What is a real and substantial connection?
      • Legislative Developments - November 2020
      • Section 151D: A tale of two applications
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - October 2019
      • Alleged assault of a co-worker: Is the employer vicariously liable?
      • Legislative Developments - October 2019
      • MAC appeal not a MAC appeal
      • The stringent nature of an employer’s duty of care: a duty “to seeing that care is taken”
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - October 2020
      • A consideration of ’social and recreational activities’ under the PIRS rating system
      • Employer loses grip on contributory negligence
      • Legislative Developments - October 2020
      • The Commission upholds three work capacity decisions
    • Employers Liability Newsletter - September 2019
      • Employer establishes section 11A defence
      • Recent Developments - September 2019
      • Successful appeal against decision of AMS
      • When can video surveillance footage be sent to an AMS?
    • Employers Liability Newsletter August 2020
      • Drawing inferences: evidence must be considered as a whole on the balance of probabilities
      • Payment of damages ‘in respect of an injury’: interpreting s151A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
      • Personal Injury Commission - one step closer
    • Employers Liability Newsletter August 2021
      • Member’s discretion when considering medical evidence
      • NSWCA clarifies when a subpoena to produce can be set aside
      • Psychological injury rejected in absence of supporting evidence
    • Employers Liability Newsletter February 2020
      • Fake facts? The trial judge’s role
      • The sting in the tail! Interest on claims for statutory indemnity
      • Withholding information from a worker results in employer action not being considered reasonable under section 11A(1)
    • Employers Liability Newsletter July 2020
      • Consequential conditions: The expression ‘as a result of’ requires more than a common sense approach
      • Employer’s s11A defence confirmed at Presidential level
      • Industrial manslaughter - implications for employers
      • Offers of compromise and indemnity costs orders
    • Employers Liability Newsletter July 2021
      • Not a happy traveller
      • Reasonable steps by employer satisfy duty of care for full recovery
      • Referrals to a Medical Assessor: Body parts assessed as having no permanent impairment can still be referred for assessment
    • Employers Liability Newsletter June 2020
      • Goodbye WCC, hello PIC
      • WPI Assessments: AMS or Arbitrator’s Determination?
    • Employers Liability Newsletter June 2021
      • Aggregation of WPI
      • Permanent impairment - Discounting for pre-existing conditions or previous injury
      • Person who ‘paid’ the compensation not to be taken literally. Subtleties of 151Z
    • Employers Liability Newsletter May 2020
      • Adding incidents to injury
      • Back to basics: revisting contributory negligence and breach of duty of care
      • Covid-19 update
      • Is a volunteer a worker for the purposes of benefits under the Workers Compensation (Dust Disease) Act 1942?
      • National COVID-19 Safe Workplace Principles have been announced
      • Section 22/22A - Does quantifying the level of incapacity that stems from an earlier injury require direct evidence from the injured worker themselves?
    • Employers Liability Newsletter September 2020
      • Is an unproven medical treatment appropriately awarded in damages?
      • Proving a consequential condition and clarification with respect to what can and cannot be referred to an AMS
      • What constitutes ‘employment benefits’ under s11A(1)?
    • Employers Liability Newsletter September 2021
      • Employer Liability for COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects
      • Good Faith and the Obligations of the Model Litigant
      • Public Liability Insurer Fails to Establish Employer Negligence
    • Employers Liability Newsletter – March 2019
      • Looking back to assess the future
      • No negligence by labour hire employer – sub-contractor (host employer) liable in damages
      • The latest changes and commencement dates - March 2019
      • When is a “Roadie” a worker?
    • Financial Services Bulletin - September 2018
      • Indemnity Costs and section 52(7)(d) of the SIS Act
      • Involvement in criminal acts – moving the goal posts of public policy
      • Section 54 of the Act prevents a FSP from relying on a technical breach of the policy
      • Senate Committee recommends no changes to group insurance budget proposals
      • TPD: Reinsurer in the Spotlight
      • Unfair Contracts Protections and Life Insurance
      • What's happening here and now? September 2018
      • Working at reduced capacity and limited medical involvement leads to a decline in TPD Claims
    • Fraud - A Conscious Indifference to the Truth
    • Life Insurance Bulletin - April 2020
      • AFCA disregards policy trauma definition – Says fairness requires benefit to be paid despite definition not being met
      • Death Claim – Act of murder ‘forfeits’ joint policy owner’s right to a benefit
      • Federal Court considers issue of when a TPD benefit is payable – Also considers interest
      • Financial Services Royal Commission Fallout - Claims handling as a Financial Service
      • Financial Services Royal Commission Fallout – Proposed changes to the disclosure requirements and remedies under the ICA
      • Impact of COVID-19 on Courts and Tribunals
      • Note from the Editor - April 2020
      • TPD - Intense scrutiny of decline letters continues
      • Unfair contract terms regime to apply to life insurance policies from 5 April 2021
    • Life Insurance Bulletin - April 2021
      • AFCA interprets ‘usual occupation’ to include two unrelated occupations for the purposes of assessing income protection benefits
      • AFCA upholds trustee’s decision to distribute death benefit to de facto partner over competing claims
      • APRA progresses Prudential Standard 250 governing insurance in superannuation
      • ASIC plans to extend its consumer remediation guidance to all AFS licensees
      • FCA sets out road map for utmost good faith compliance in non-disclosure/misrepresentation investigations
      • HCA delivers key decision – financial product advice given to fund members was personal advice under the Corporations Act
      • NSWCA confirms flexible approach to TPD qualifying periods based on wording of TPD definition
      • Note from the Editor - April 2021
      • Sustainability of Insurance in Superannuation…APRA warns group insurance players
    • Life Insurance Bulletin - December 2020
      • Claims handling and settling as a financial service – A step closer…
      • Consumer Engagement Report – ASIC’s deep dive into super fund member satisfaction
      • NSWCA confirms scrupulous and inflexible approach to policy interpretation where clear words used
      • Note from the Editor - December 2020
      • Offset clauses – The essential elements
      • Precision required in TPD Occupational Rating Guides
      • S29 ICA: SCT finds new insurer becomes ‘the insurer’ when there is a Part 9 transfer
    • Life Insurance Bulletin - July 2020
      • AFCA disregards policy trauma definition – ‘fairness’ to the insured was again the determinative factor
      • Federal Court considers scope of AFCA’s powers
      • Federal Court rules on ‘casual’ employment with potential implications for group life cover
      • Federal Court supports application of the Colella ‘capacity’ approach to an ‘unlikely ever to be able’ TPD definition
      • LICOP Post Hayne FSRC – A recap and update
      • Note from the Editor - July 2020
      • Summary of legislative changes to remote witnessing and electronic execution of documents in response to COVID-19
    • Life Insurance Bulletin - October 2020
      • AFCA finds trauma event arises when it occurs, not when diagnosed
      • Court dismisses request for discovery of comparable insurance applications in non – disclosure case
      • FCA confirms indemnity costs only ordered in cases where proceedings end by agreement if ‘losing’ party’s case was hopeless
      • NSWSC confirms insurers must consider all TPD evidence
      • NSWSC confirms s29(2) Avoidance – Court rejects suggestion illicit drug use is akin to drinking alcohol
      • NSWSC finds settlement not binding where no executed Deed of Release
      • Note from the Editor - October 2020
      • Reinsurance: Court rejects request for group insurance takeover material
      • Sustainability in Disability Insurance - Actuaries’ Taskforce lays bare the challenges ahead…
    • Life Insurance Bulletin June 2021
      • AFCA says fairness requires the cancellation procedure in s210(5) to apply to all life insurance policies
      • AFCA upholds ‘militant activities’ exclusion
      • FCA confirms AFCA not required to comply with rules of evidence
      • FCA considers ‘constructive rejection’ of claim
      • NSWCA confirms close judicial scrutiny of insurers’ reasons
      • Note from the Editor - June 2021
      • Sustainability in Disability Insurance – An update…
    • Parliamentary Committee rejects Industry’s submissions to offer rehab
    • Product Design and Distribution Obligations Bill update
    • TPD: Stage 1 in the post-Jones era
    • What's happening here and now? February 2019
• Personal Injury Commission – Key Rule Changes
• The ‘Scheme Modernisation’ Changes to Victoria’s Workers Comensation Laws - will they have the desired impact?