aspects of common law claims 2005 - edwards michael powell · aspects of common law claims 2005 2....

Aspects of Common Law Claims 2005

Author: Christopher Michael Accredited Specialist

Blue: Pantone 540CBlack: 100% K

Edwards Michael Lawyers Aspects of Common Law Claims 2005

2

Christopher is highly experienced, acting on behalf of both private and institutional clients across a broad spectrum of litigation and jurisdictions.

Christopher regularly writes publications on legislative and case law developments and delivers professional seminars and training sessions for clients.

He advises clients in relation to claims system design and management and in relation to compliance issues.

Christopher is a complex claims and appellate jurisdiction specialist.

Christopher Michael has 22 years’ litigation experience, 13 as an Accredited Specialist in Personal Injury Law. There are no legal practitioners in NSW with a longer period of Accreditation.

3


Part 1 General Principles 4

Negligence 4Contributory Negligence 4Indemnity 4Dual Insurance 5Labour Hire Companies 5Host Employers 5The Effect of a Settlement on the Worker’s OngoingEntitlement to Compensation 5

Part 2 Damages 6

Heads of Damages 6

Part 3 How a Claim for Work Injury Damages is Initiated 8

What Particulars Need to be Provided? 8

Part 4 Threshold 10

Summary of Timeframes 10

Part 5 The Pre-Filing Statement (PFS) 11

What if the Pre-Filing Statement is Defective? 12

Part 6 The Pre-Filing Defence 13

Consequences of Not Serving Pre-Filing Defence 13

Part 7 Mediation 14

Summary of Procedures 14

Part 8 Time Limits 15

Part 9 Costs: Work Injury Damages Claims 16

If Referred To Mediation 16Where claim is not referred to Mediation 16

Appendix A Litigation Tables 17

Contents


4

Part 1

General Principles

Negligence

It is a prerequisite for a worker to establish an entitlement to Work Injury Damages that the injuries are held to arise from the negligence of the employer:-

“For a Plaintiff to succeed it must appear, by direct evidence or by reasonable inference from the evidence, that the Defendant unreasonably failed to take measures or adopt means, reasonably open to him in all the circumstances, which would have protected the Plaintiff from the dangers of his task without unduly impeding its accomplishment” (Vozza v Tooth & Co Limited (1964)) 112 CLR 316 (High Court).”

Contributory Negligence

The employer’s duty of care does not excuse a worker from taking reasonable care for his own safety. If there has been any such want of care, the Court is entitled to make a deduction to account for contributory negligence. This will follow an apportionment of the respective degrees of culpability of the employer and the injured worker. The recent authorities, however, suggest that employers carry a reasonably significant burden in order to establish the defence:

“When regard is had to the decisions of this Court (the High Court) on the subject of contributory negligence in an employment context, it is indisputable that reasonable care by an employer in Australia today requires ‘allowance to be made (in relation eg. to a safe system of

work) not just for inadvertence, misjudgement or inattention but also for negligence, carelessness and sometimes even foolishness or misconduct on the part of employees – including skilled and/or experienced employees.’

Indeed, the cases that support these propositions suggest an increasingly ‘forgiving’ attitude by the Court toward errant employees in their approach as to what constitutes contributory negligence and the related apportionment of responsibility…” Liftronic Pty Limited v Unver [2001] HCA 24 (3 May 2001)

Important: Section 151N(2) provides that damages are not to be reduced because of contributory negligence below the amount that the Court “estimates” would have been payable by way of a commutation.

Indemnity

Liability to indemnify an insured under the workers’ compensation policy only arises in respect of any person who is a “worker” of the insured. Accordingly, if the insured is not being sued on the basis of a breach of employer’s duty of care (eg. breach of contract, breach of duty of care as an occupier, etc), the workers’ compensation policy will not respond. Consideration will need to be given to this issue at an early stage, as failure to decline indemnity may prejudice the insurer’s right to subsequently change its position.

5


Dual Insurance

Dual insurance applies where there are two different policies that respond to the same risk. It is an essential requirement for dual insurance (or double insurance) that the policyholder must be entitled to claim against more than one policy. In order for this to occur the description of the policyholder in each policy must be identical.

The most common situation for the application for dual insurance is where a workers’ compensation policy and a CTP policy can each respond.

This would occur where a worker is injured during the course of employment, as a result of the negligence of an owner or driver of a motor vehicle where:

(a) The insured is the owner or driver of the vehicle; or (b) The insured is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver of the vehicle.

In order to ascertain whether dual insurance is applicable in these circumstances, the vehicle must be registered to the insured (ie. the CTP policy holder and the registration holder will invariably be the same). If this policyholder is the same as the policyholder of the workers’ compensation policy then, prima facie, dual insurance generally applies.

Labour Hire Companies

Because employers have a non-delegable duty of care, some complications arise when determining the liability of labour hire companies in circumstances when an employee’s services are provided to a host employer. In TNT Australia Pty Limited v Christie [2003] NSW CA 47 (12 March 2003) the Court of Appeal emphasised that an employer who operates a labour hire business does not abrogate its non-delegable duty simply because its employees are sent to work for a client. However, it was held that the primary question is whether the employee’s injuries have resulted from some failure on the part of the employer to take reasonable care for the employee’s safety. In the special circumstances of Christie the labour hire organisation was held to have a 25% responsibility, on the basis of a failure to detect and/or repair the cause of defective machinery that had been reported two weeks prior to the accident.

Host Employers

Occasionally a worker may sue a labour hire employer directly for damages. The workers’ compensation policy responds to such a claim.

If, however, the labour hire company issues a Cross Claim against the host employer, seeking contribution or indemnity to any damages recovered by the Plaintiff, it is the public liability insurer of the host employer that responds to such a claim. Similarly, it is the public liability policy that responds to any common law claim directly against the host employer.

The Effect of a Settlement on the Worker’s Ongoing Entitlement to Compensation

If a person recovers damages from the employer, the person ceases to be entitled to any further compensation under the Act (Section 151A(1)(a)).


6

Part 2

Damages

Section 151G of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (as amended) provides that the only damages that may be awarded are:

(a) Damages for past economic loss due to loss of earnings; and

(b) Damages for future economic loss due to the deprivation or impairment of earning capacity.

These restrictions do not apply to awards of damages under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1997 (ie. claims arising from the death of a worker).

These restrictions apply to all claims for damages commenced on or after 27 November 2001. There are two important exceptions to these restrictions:

If a worker commenced Common Law proceedings against another party prior to 27 November 2001 and the insured is then subsequently joined to the proceedings as Cross Defendant; and

Where the injury was caused as a result of the use or operation of a motor vehicle.

In these two situations, damages are assessed without the restrictions imposed by Section 151G. In other words, there is a theoretical entitlement to non-economic loss, past and future out-of-pocket expenses, damages for domestic assistance, etc, subject to any restrictions imposed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 and/or the Motor Accidents Legislation.

Heads of Damages

Past Economic Loss

This is calculated on a net basis. The first step is to ascertain the worker’s probable earnings had he not been injured. Any residual earning capacity then needs to be taken into account. The differential is then multiplied by the number of weeks between the date of injury and the date of settlement, less any workers’ compensation payments received.

Example:

Probable weekly earnings: $500.00 per week net

Ability to earn: $250.00 per week net

Difference: $250.00 per week net

No. of weeks from date of injury to date of settlement: 180

$250.00 x 180: $45,000.00

Less workers compensation payments received: ~$30,000.00

Total: $15,000.00

7


Important: It is arguable that damages for past economic loss must now be assessed on a gross basis because of a theoretical entitlement for a worker to incur an income tax liability for such payments. Such a liability previously did not exist because it was impossible to distinguish past economic loss from damages for non-economic loss, past out-of-pocket expenses, etc. However, that difficulty is no longer operative because the only damages that may be recovered are stipulated to be in respect of economic loss.

Fox v Wood

These are damages to compensate the Plaintiff for the income tax deductions from workers’ compensation payments. The aim of these damages is to accommodate the fact that damages are assessed on a net basis, whereas workers compensation payments are paid on gross basis.

Future Economic Loss

These damages are calculated from the date of settlement until the worker’s anticipated retirement age. The statutory retirement age for the purposes of calculating future economic loss is 65 (section 151(IA)). Once again it is necessary to have regard to the worker’s probable weekly earnings on a net basis and to make an assessment of the worker’s residual capacity to earn. On the basis of the above example, this results in a weekly loss of $250.00 per week net.

The litigation tables (Appendix A) are then used to capitalise that figure at 5%. For example, a worker with a loss of $250.00 per week and with 20 years until anticipated retirement age would have future economic loss assessed in accordance with the following calculations:

$250,000.00 x 666.4 = $166,600.00

This amount is further reduced to account for the vicissitudes of life (ie. the possibility that a worker will die or become seriously ill prematurely, or have some other accident or incident which would otherwise affect earning capacity). The usual deduction for vicissitudes is 15%, however in some circumstances (eg. Where worker already has indications of a condition which would affect earning capacity, such as very advanced degenerative changes, etc) this can be increased. Using the standard deduction applied in the above example, the vicissitudes would be dealt with as follows:-

$166,600.00 x .85% = $141,610.00


8

Part 3

How a Claim

for Work Injury

Damages is

Initiated

The Workplace Injury Management Act 1998 provides that a claim for Work Injury Damages cannot be made unless a claim for lump sum compensation is made before or at the same time as the claim for Work Injury Damages (Section 280A).

The first formal step required before Court proceedings can be commenced for Work Injury Damages is the serving of a Pre-Filing Statement. However, Section 315(2) provides that a Pre-Filing Statement cannot be served unless:

(a) The person on whom the claim is made wholly disputes liability for the claim; or

(b) The person on whom the claim is made has made an offer of settlement to the claimant pursuant to the determination of the claim as and when required by Section 281 and one month has elapsed since the offer was made; or

(c) The person on whom the claim is made has failed to determine the claim as and when required by Section 281.

Accordingly, unless liability is wholly disputed or a settlement offer has been made to the worker, the most common circumstances which will allow a worker to file a Pre-Filing Statement is that the insurer has failed to determine the claim as and when required by Section 281.

Section 281 provides that a claim for Work Injury Damages must be “determined” either:

(a) Within one (1) month of the degree of permanent impairment first becoming fully ascertainable (as agreed by the parties or as determined by an Approved Medical Specialist); or;

(b) Within two (2) months after the claimant providing to the insurer all relevant particulars about the claim; whichever is the later.

Therefore, subject to any issues in relation to “maximum medical improvement”, the insurer has two months after the claimant has provided all relevant particulars (including attending for medical examination) about the claim within which to either:

(a) Accept liability and make a reasonable offer of settlement; or

(b) Dispute liability.

Failure to either make the offer or dispute liability within two (2) months will provide the worker with grounds to serve a Pre-Filing Statement.

What Particulars Need to be Provided?

Section 282(1) details the information to be provided in order for a worker to properly make a claim for work injury damages. Essentially, full details of the following need to be provided:

9


The injury received by the claimant;

All impairments arising from the injury;

Any previous injury, or any pre-existing condition or abnormality, to which any proportion of an impairment is or may be due (whether or not it is an injury for which compensation has been paid or is payable under Division 4 of Part 3 of the 1987 Act);

The economic losses that are being claimed as damages and details of the alleged negligence or other tort of the employer;

Information relevant to a determination as to whether or not the degree of permanent impairment resulting from the injury will change; and

Attendance for Medical examination at the request of the insurer.

Important: If insufficient particulars are provided or the insurer requires the worker to submit for medical examination, further particulars must be requested, or details of the medical examination must be advised, within two (2) weeks after the initial claim is made. This allows time to be extended, for the claim to be “determined”, to a date two (2) months after the particulars are provided or the medical examination is attended, whichever is the later.

Action required by insurer on receipt of claim for Work Injury Damages:

Assess adequacy of particulars and medical evidence on file;

Request further and better particulars and/or arrange medical examination within two (2) weeks of receipt of claim;

Assess whether the medical evidence realistically establishes a possible 15% Whole Person Impairment. If so, refer file to legal advisers;

Legal advisers to appoint factual investigators. This will preserve privilege on the factual report; and

Upon receipt of the factual report, legal advisers to arrange any qualified expert liability reports and any further necessary qualified expert medical reports.

Important: Preliminary steps must be taken to obtain this evidence at an early stage because of the short timeframes which apply once a worker has either agreement or AMS Certification of 15% Whole Person Impairment. Once this has been obtained, in most cases a Pre-Filing Statement can be served immediately and the Defendant then has a maximum of 42 days to file a Defence, including setting out the nature of evidence to be called and annexing all documentary evidence.


10

< 1 month

< 2 months

Claim made

Insufficient particulars or insurer requires

medical exam.

< 2 weeks Time Suspended

Requestparticulars/advise of

medical exam.

Worker provides further particulars/

attends medical exam.

Full particulars provided, no medical

exam. required

Agreement or AMSCertification of 15%

WPI

PFSClaim must be determined

Accept liability and make reasonable offer

Dispute liability

CLAIM FOR WID 15%WPI

PFS MEDIATION28-42 DAYS

COURT

NO PFD42 DAYS

COURT

PFD WITHIN 42 DAYS

Part 4 Threshold

Summary of Timeframes

Section 151H of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 provides that no damages may be awarded unless the injury results in the death of the worker or in a degree of permanent impairment of the injured worker that is at least 15%.

Section 313 of the Workplace Injury Management Act 1998 provides that a Pre-Filing Statement cannot be served and Court proceedings cannot be commenced if there is a dispute as to whether the degree of permanent impairment is sufficient for an award of damages.

In order to qualify for an award of damages, the worker must establish:

That the condition has reached maximum medical improvement; and

That the degree of permanent impairment resulting from the injury is at least 15%.

In the absence of agreement in relation to these matters, a worker is required to obtain AMS Certification that the degree of permanent impairment is at least 15%.

This is achieved by filing an Application Seeking Resolution of a Threshold Dispute in the Workers Compensation Commission.

11


Part 5

The Pre-Filing

Statement (PFS)

Section 315 requires the worker to serve a Pre-Filing Statement “setting out such particulars of the claim and the evidence that the worker will rely on to establish or in support of the claim as the Rules may require”.

The form of the Pre-Filing Statement is prescribed by Rule 80. It is to consist of a copy of the Statement of Claim intended to be filed “and is to include as attachments the information and other documents required by the Workers Compensation Acts and these Rules.” It is to be served on both the employer and the employer’s insurer.

Rule 81 provides that the worker must serve with the Pre-Filing Statement “all information and documents upon which the worker proposes to rely…” including either evidence that the insurer agrees the claimant has at least 15% Whole Person Impairment or AMS Certification of 15% Whole Person Impairment.

Important: The combined effect of Section 315 and Rule 81 is that the Pre-Filing Statement must “set out” particulars of claim and the evidence that the claimant will rely on and “serve” all “information” and “documents” upon which the worker proposes to rely. This would appear to require basic disclosure of the evidence intended to be called by the worker within the Pre-Filing Statement itself, and attachment of “information and other documents” required by the legislation.

The significance of this requirement is realised by Section 318 of the Workplace Injury Management Act 1998 (1)(d):

“A party to the proceedings is not entitled to have any report or other evidence admitted in the proceedings on the party’s behalf if the report or other evidence was not disclosed by the party in a Pre-Filing Statement or Defence served under this Division except with leave of the Court.”

It would therefore appear that all documentary evidence to be relied upon must be attached to the Pre-Filing Statement but that other evidence or information need only be “set out” or “disclosed”. This would presumably allow the calling of oral evidence from witnesses, provided such evidence is foreshadowed in the Pre-Filing Statement, without the necessity for Statements from those witnesses to be formally attached.

Section 151DA of the Workers Compensation Act provides that a Pre-Filing Statement remains current from the time it is served until it is struck-out under Section 151DA(3) or until it is withdrawn by the person who served it, whichever happens first.

Section 151DA provides that the Defendant may apply to the President to have a Pre-Filing Statement struck-out, after six (6) months have elapsed from service of a Pre-Filing Defence.


12

However, the President is not to strike-out the Pre-Filing Statement if he is satisfied that the degree of permanent impairment of the worker is not yet fully ascertainable and the matter is the subject of a referral for AMS Assessment of the degree of permanent impairment.

What if the Pre-Filing Statement is Defective?

If an insurer considers that a Pre-Filing Statement is defective, the worker must be notified within seven (7) days after service of the Pre-Filing Statement, and details of the defects must be provided.

Examples of possible defects are:

Incompleteness;

Premature service;

Failure to obtain either agreement or AMS Certification of 15% Whole Person Impairment; and

Dispute as to whether the degree of permanent impairment is fully ascertainable.

Important: Rule 84 provides that any such notice of a defective Pre-Filing Statement must be lodged with the Workers’ Compensation Commission as soon as practicable after giving notification to the worker.

Thereafter, within seven (7) days of notification to the worker, the worker must serve on the Defendant and lodge with the Workers Compensation Commission advice

as to whether the worker accepts that the Pre-Filing Statement is defective and, if so, in what detail and to what extent.

The worker then has a further seven (7) days of serving this advice regarding acceptance of the defect to request that the dispute be referred to the Registrar for determination under Section 317(2).

If the worker fails to comply with either of these measures, the Defendant can within seven (7) days of the last date for compliance by the worker, serve its own request for the dispute to be referred for determination, otherwise the Pre-Filing Statement is taken not to have been served.

Any request by either party for referral of the dispute for determination under Section 317(2) must be followed by a Certificate of Service within two (2) working days.

Important: If it is to be contended that a Pre-Filing Statement is defective, it is imperative that the matter be referred in accordance with Rule 84 for determination by the Registrar and that a Pre-Filing Defence is not served, even on a “precautionary” basis. This is because Rule 84(9) provides that where a Pre-Filing Defence is served:

(a) The Pre-Filing Statement is taken to have been served; and

(b) The Defendant is taken to have waived any objection to the defects alleged in the notification.

13


Part 6

The Pre-Filing

Defence

The Defendant must respond to the Pre-Filing Statement within 28 days by:

(a) Accepting or denying liability (wholly or in part); and

(b) To the extent that the Defendant does not accept liability, serving on the worker a defence to the claim “setting out” such particulars of the defence and evidence that the Defendant will rely on to defend the claim as the Rules may require.

Rule 82 provides that the Pre-Filing Defence is to consist of a copy of the Defence intended to be filed in the Court and is to include as attachments the information and other documents upon which the Defendant proposes to rely (Rules 82 and 83).

Consequences of Not Serving Pre-Filing Defence

The Defendant is not entitled to have any report or other evidence admitted in the proceedings, except with leave of the Court; and

The Court is not to grant leave unless satisfied that the material concerned was not reasonably available to the party and the failure to grant leave would substantially prejudice the parties case.

Important: If a Pre-Filing Defence is not served within 42 days after service of the Pre-Filing Statement, the Defendant is not entitled to dispute liability for the claim or to allege contributory negligence.

If no Pre-Filing Defence is filed within 42 days of service of the Pre-Filing Statement, the worker can commence Court proceedings without the necessity for Mediation in the Workers Compensation Commission;

If a Defence is filed after 28 days of service of the Pre-Filing Statement but before 42 days of such service, the worker can refer the claim to Mediation at any time after the 28 day period has expired.


14

< 1 month

< 2 months

Claim made

Insufficient particulars or insurer requires

medical exam.

< 2 weeks Time Suspended

Requestparticulars/advise of

medical exam.

Worker provides further particulars/

attends medical exam.

Full particulars provided, no medical

exam. required

Agreement or AMSCertification of 15%

WPI

PFSClaim must be determined

Accept liability and make reasonable offer

Dispute liability

CLAIM FOR WID 15%WPI

PFS MEDIATION28-42 DAYS

COURT

NO PFD42 DAYS

COURT

PFD WITHIN 42 DAYS

Part 7

Mediation

Summary of Procedures

A worker must refer a claim for Work Injury Damages for Mediation before commencing Court proceedings, unless the Defendant has failed to respond to the Pre-Filing Statement within 42 days (Section 318A WIM).

The worker can refer the claim for Mediation at any time after 28 days from service of the Pre-Filing Statement.

A Defendant may decline to participate in Mediation if liability is wholly disputed, but otherwise cannot decline to participate (Section 318A3).

The Application for Mediation is to include a copy of the Pre-Filing Statement and copies of all information and documents served with the Pre-Filing Statement. The Application must be served on the Defendant within seven (7) days (Rule 85).

The Reply to the Application for Mediation must be served within seven (7) days, including copies of the Pre-Filing Defence and all information and documents served with the Pre-Filing Defence.

Important: The Reply must indicate whether or not the Defendant will decline, under Section 318A(3) of the 1998 Act, to participate in Mediation.

15


Part 8

Time Limits

Proceedings must be commenced within three (3) years after the date of injury, except with leave of the Court (Section 151D).

The main considerations in relation to whether or not leave is granted are issues of “delay” and “prejudice”. Ultimately, the worker must establish that it is “fair and just” that leave be granted. The worker will also be required to provide an adequate explanation in the delay in commencing proceedings.

Important: Time does not run for the purposes of Section 151D while determination of the claim is delayed under Section 281, up to a period of two (2) months after the worker has provided all relevant particulars/attended for medical examination.

Time also does not run in the following circumstances:

While a medical dispute regarding permanent impairment is the subject of an application before the Commission or referral for AMS assessment;

While an AMS Certificate is the subject of an Appeal; and

While a Pre-Filing Statement has been served and remains current. Section 151DA of the Workers Compensation Act provides that a Pre-Filing Statement remains current from the time it is served until it is struck-out under Section 151DA(3) or until it is withdrawn by the person who served it, whichever happens first.


16

Part 9

Costs: Work Injury

Damages Claims

Costs payable to a worker in relation to a successful claim for work injury damages are payable in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Regulations. This provides a scale which depends on the settlement amount.

Important: Section 151T effectively provides that the amount excludes deductions or restrictions, e.g. workers’ compensation paid and contributory negligence, etc.

However, this is subject to significant restrictions which will depend upon whether or not the claim was referred to Mediation.

If Referred To Mediation

At the Mediation, the Mediator will record the final offers made by the parties.

If a worker eventually achieves a more favourable result than the worker’s final offer at Mediation, the Court is to order the Defendant to pay the worker’s costs on a party/party basis (ie. Schedule 7).

If, however, the worker recovers a Judgment less favourable than the insurer’s final offer, the worker is to pay the insurer’s costs on party/party basis (Schedule 7).

In all other cases, each party is to bear its own costs (Regulations 91).

Where claim is not referred to Mediation

Costs are to be ordered as if the insurer’s final offer at Mediation was $nil and the worker’s final offer was the amount specified in the Pre-Filing Statement.

It will only be in the rarest of circumstances that a worker will establish an entitlement to the damages specified in the Pre-Filing Statement.

In most circumstances, the claimant will receive a more favourable result than the “notional” offer made by the insurer at Mediation ($ nil) but will invariably fail to achieve a better result than the amount stipulated in the Pre-Filing Statement.

The most likely scenario is therefore that each party will be required to bear its own costs. In other words, in order to be entitled to costs the worker must either obtain a more favourable result than the worker’s final offer at Mediation or, if the matter was not referred to Mediation, a more favourable result than the amount stipulated in the Plaintiff’s Pre-Filing Statement.

If a matter is referred to Mediation and the worker rejects an offer by the insurer, and subsequently fails to obtain a more favourable result from the Court, the worker is liable to pay the insurer’s costs on a party/party basis.

17


Appendix A

Litigation Tables

Table of Multipliers - $1 per week

Present Lump Sum Equivalent in Value to a Sum of $1 Per Week for Periods from 1 to 90 Years Calculated at Discount Rates of 3% and 5%

Years 3% 5% Years 3% 5% Years 3% 5%1 51.4 50.9 31 1,059.2 833.8 61 1,474.4 1,014.92 101.3 99.4 32 1,079.8 845.0 62 1,482.9 1,017.53 149.8 145.6 33 1,099.8 855.7 63 1,491.1 1,020.04 196.9 189.6 34 1,119.2 865.9 64 1,499.1 1,022.35 242.6 231.5 35 1,138.0 875.6 65 1,506.8 1,024.66 286.9 271.4 36 1,156.2 884.8 66 1,514.4 1,026.77 330.0 309.4 37 1,174.0 893.6 67 1,521.7 1,028.88 371.8 345.6 38 1,191.2 902.0 68 1,528.8 1,030.79 412.4 380.1 39 1,207.9 909.9 69 1,535.6 1,032.510 451.8 412.9 40 1,224.2 917.5 70 1,542.3 1,034.311 490.0 444.1 41 1,239.9 924.8 71 1,548.8 1,036.012 527.2 473.9 42 1,255.2 931.6 72 1,555.1 1,037.613 563.3 502.3 43 1,270.1 938.2 73 1,561.2 1,039.114 598.3 529.3 44 1,284.5 944.5 74 1,567.2 1,040.515 632.3 550.0 45 1,298.5 950.4 75 1,573.0 1,041.916 665.3 579.5 46 1,312.1 956.1 76 1,578.6 1,043.217 697.3 602.8 47 1,325.3 961.5 77 1,584.0 1,044.518 728.4 625.0 48 1,338.1 966.6 78 1,589.3 1,045.719 758.6 646.2 49 1,350.6 971.5 79 1,594.4 1,046.820 787.9 666.4 50 1,362.6 976.2 80 1,599.4 1,047.921 816.4 685.6 51 1,374.4 980.6 81 1,604.2 1,048.922 844.0 703.8 52 1,385.7 984.9 82 1,608.9 1,049.923 870.9 721.2 53 1,396.8 988.9 83 1,613.4 1,050.824 896.6 737.8 54 1,407.5 992.7 84 1,617.9 1,051.725 922.2 753.6 55 1,418.0 996.4 85 1,622.2 1,052.526 946.8 768.7 56 1,428.1 999.8 86 1,626.3 1,053.327 970.6 783.0 57 1,437.9 1,003.2 87 1,630.4 1,054.128 993.8 796.6 58 1,447.4 1,006.3 88 1,634.3 1,054.829 1,016.2 809.6 59 1,456.7 1,009.3 89 1,638.1 1,055.530 1,038.1 822.0 60 1,465.7 1,012.2 90 1,641.8 1,056.2

Edwards Michael Lawyers

Level 11, 75 Elizabeth Street, Sydney 2000

DX 1209 Sydney

Phone: (02)9232 5033 Fax: 02)9223 3626

[email protected]

www.edwardsmichael.com.au


aspects of common law claims 2005 - edwards michael powell · aspects of common law claims 2005 2....

Documents