Australia: Trials & Appeals & Compensation

Many parents worry about what will happen to their hard-earned assets after they die. Some worry, in particular, that one of their children may challenge their will and unravel the careful plans they have made. One approach (but fairly extreme strategy), is to restructure assets during their lifetime, transferring property or control of family trusts to a trusted child so that there is less in the estate for anyone to fight over. But can those lifetime transfers themselves be unwound later, on the basis that the parent was taken advantage of?

Generative AI can be a valuable tool in legal practice, but using public AI platforms with confidential or privileged information can create significant risks. We examine two recent overseas decisions and what they may mean for Australian businesses, insurers and lawyers when it comes to preserving legal professional privilege and maintaining confidentiality.

This episode examines a Magistrates Court workplace injury case where an executive housekeeper at Daydream Island Resort claimed shoulder damage from pulling a hotel room door shut against wind. The discussion explores how inconsistencies in the plaintiff's evidence—including an unreported 'Dirty Dancing' lift injury five months prior—influenced the court's assessment of causation and foreseeability in this personal injury claim.

In the forced adoption case of Lamont, the Supreme Court confirmed that the plaintiff’s consent to the adoption of her child in 1968 was valid and informed, rejecting claims that she was coerced into doing so. The Court further found that the defendants adhered to the societal and legal standards of the time, and were not in breach of their duty of care in the course of the adoption.

In the ever-evolving landscape of the building and construction industry, legal practitioners and expert witnesses must remain vigilant to the nuances of expert evidence admissibility. The recent case of Max Build Pty Ltd v Owners - Strata Plan No 54026 highlights the importance of an expert’s qualifications, the reliability of expert reports, the requirements of admissible expert opinion evidence, and the role of legal practitioners in shaping expert evidence.

When equipment is hired out but later damaged, hire businesses face a familiar challenge: who says the equipment wasn’t already faulty, who bears the risk, and can the hirer recover the cost of repair? The NSW Supreme Court’s decision in Civiltrak Sydney Pty Ltd v Orange Equipment Pty Ltd t/as Orange Hire offers valuable guidance to solving this puzzle.

On 4 March 2026, the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision which discussed the distinction between works defects and incomplete works, explored whether mere dissatisfaction of works is deemed defective, and provided a reminder of the importance of an expert witness’ independence when preparing a report (lest their opinion be given less weight as a consequence).

The Health Care Complaints Commission placed a prohibition order on Ms Huirong Zhou, a non-registered practitioner, following a Botox treatment she administered to a patient causing iatrogenic botulism and persistent difficulty swallowing and speaking...

Whether the respondent’s Amended Statement of Claim was sufficiently pleaded, in light of the decision of AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2.