This matter is a class action in which damages are claimed by the plaintiffs, and on behalf of group members, being individual patients who had breast augmentation surgery on or before 29 October 2017 at identified premises and whose surgery was performed by or with the assistance of one or more of 12 doctors in accordance with an alleged standard approach described in the pleadings as the “One Size Fits All Approach”. Allegations of negligence, breaches ss 60, 61(1) and 61(2) of the Australian Consumer Law in relation to supply of services and allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct have been pleaded. Issues of limitations and non-availability of certain causes of action have also been pleaded in response.

The proceedings were originally set down for a 12–14-week hearing in the Supreme Court of NSW beginning September 2023 but were subsequently vacated in consequence of an appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal concerning an application to declass the proceedings. The decision of the Court of Appeal is to be found at [2023] NSWCA 249. The matter has now been set down for final hearing from April 2024.

These proceedings involved allegations of negligence in relation to a motor vehicle accident. Questions of causation and product liability under the Trade Practices Act were also raised.

This matter was a retrial of a hearing involving a person who had been injured on a worksite. Questions of liability and damage where all in issue.

These proceedings involved applications dealing with costs arising from the decision of Harrison J in Middleton v Erwin [2009] NSWSC 108.

This matter involved an action for trespass and negligence and included the application of statutory defences.

In this matter claims of misleading and deceptive conduct, breach of agreement and negligence were made.

This matter concerned a claim for personal injury. Issues of liability of a managing agent were also raised.

This case involved a claim for debt said to be owing. A significant issue of assignment of debt was raised. In addition, there was an action based upon a cheque not being met on presentation.

This matter raised a question of whether a trial judge was functus officio in dealing with a particular application.

This matter concerned a claim brought in consequence of the defendant, during excavation of a property, digging up underground Telstra cabling. Questions of negligence and damages were raised.

This case concerned a plaintiff who thought that he had entered into a particular lotto draw. Unfortunately, an employee of a news agency entered him into a different lotto draw. The numbers the plaintiff selected were drawn out but not for his particular lotto entry, rather for the draw that he asked to be in. Action was taken against the news agency and NSW Lotteries corporation and cross-claims were served by the news agency on its insurer and broker. Questions of contractual interpretation and statutory indemnity were raised.

This matter involved a consideration of whether compensation was payable from the Travel Compensation Fund.

This matter involved a personal injury claim; failure to prosecute and a strike-out application.

This matter concerned a personal injuries claim brought by a person who sustained injuries on-route to Australia from Singapore. The plane was over Australian airspace at the time the injuries were incurred. Questions arose as to the application of International conventions and the effect of contractual restraints in the circumstances and in the light of those conventions.

This matter involved a claim for breach of contract and negligence against a security firm who were responsible for security services at the plaintiff’s premises. Issues concerning liability of an employee were also raised.

This matter raised question of limitations in the context of a claim brought by a plaintiff.

This matter involved claims in negligence and raised questions of damages and contribution in relation to injuries sustained.

This matter involved allegations of negligence and breach of contract. Questions of indemnity under Employees Liability Act 1991 (NSW) was also raised.

This matter concerned allegations of negligence relating to an accident.

This matter raised issues of occupier’s liability as well as causation and damage.

This matter involved a negligence claim and claims for contribution and indemnity by way of cross-claim.

This matter involved a claim as a result of injuries and damage sustained in consequence of alleged breaches of contract and negligence of the defendant. Relevantly, the plaintiffs’ purchased a security and fire detection system which was alleged to have been faulty and which failed to work during a fire at premises which eventually caused loss and injury.

This matter allegations of breach of duty of care in circumstances where a plaintiff was injured in consequence of a fall. Issues of contribution also arose.

This matter raised issues of duty of care and construction of a management agency agreement. Questions of contributory negligence and whether Anshun estoppel also arose for consideration.

This matter raises issues of negligence and breach of contract in consequence of a fire in a restaurant in the Australian Capital Territory.

This was a personal injury matter which also involved occupiers’ liability and contributory negligence.

This matter involved allegations of negligence in circumstances where a stuntman working on a movie was injured.

This matter involved claims in negligence against in consequence of injuries sustained on a water slide at an amusement park.

This matter involved an arbitration award in circumstances where personal injury was sustained. Issues of occupier’s liability were raised on the pleadings.