In this episode we consider the case of Neindorf v Junkovic [2005] HCA 75, an important refresher for all "public liability" lawyers where the High Court of Australia here had the opportunity to consider the liability of a residential occupier to a visitor injured while present on a residential premises attending a garage sale. The Court's comments are highly relevant for all "home owner liability" cases.

In this episode we consider the case of Neindorf v Junkovic [2005] HCA 75, an important refresher for all "public liability" lawyers where the High Court of Australia here had the opportunity to consider the liability of a residential occupier to a visitor injured while present on a residential premises attending a garage sale. The Court's comments are highly relevant for all "home owner liability" cases.

Welcome to "Res Ispa Loquitur" with Paul Czarnota, award-winning barrister and law lecturer, serving up your shortcut to legal wisdom.

In each episode, we navigate the intricate world of torts, insurance, and personal injuries and break down recent and important cases - by delivering short, sharp, and easy-to-digest summaries.

This is for time-poor practitioners, eager law students, and anyone with a curious mind.

We unpack cases under Australian law and beyond, ensuring you stay ahead of the legal curve.

Subscribe now to "Res Ispa Loquitur", your go-to library of legal clarity.

Connect: paulczarnota@vicbar.com.au

*Disclaimer: This is for education purposes only and not to be used as a substitute for legal advice.

Welcome to "Res Ispa Loquitur" with Paul Czarnota, award-winning barrister and law lecturer, serving up your shortcut to legal wisdom.
In each episode, we navigate the intricate world of torts, insurance, and personal injuries and break down recent and important cases - by delivering short, sharp, and easy-to-digest summaries.
This is for time-poor practitioners, eager law students, and anyone with a curious mind.
We unpack cases under Australian law and beyond, ensuring you stay ahead of the legal curve.
Subscribe now to "Res Ispa Loquitur", your go-to library of legal clarity.
Connect: <a href="mailto:paulczarnota@vicbar.com.au">paulczarnota@vicbar.com.au</a>
*Disclaimer: This is for education purposes only and not to be used as a substitute for legal advice.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Welcome to "Res Ispa Loquitur" with Paul Czarnota, award-winning barrister and law lecturer, serving up your shortcut to legal wisdom.
In each episode, we navigate the intricate world of torts, insurance, and personal injuries and break down recent and important cases - by delivering short, sharp, and easy-to-digest summaries.
This is for time-poor practitioners, eager law students, and anyone with a curious mind.
We unpack cases under Australian law and beyond, ensuring you stay ahead of the legal curve.
Subscribe now to "Res Ispa Loquitur", your go-to library of legal clarity.
Connect: <a href="mailto:paulczarnota@vicbar.com.au">paulczarnota@vicbar.com.au</a>
*Disclaimer: This is for education purposes only and not to be used as a substitute for legal advice.

Neindorf v Junkovic

In this episode we consider the recent case decided by the Queensland Court of Appeal of Springfree Trampoline v Forostenko [2024] QCA 255, which involved a claim brought in negligence and s138 of the Australian Consumer Law against Springfree Trampoline for a trampoline accident on the basis that it was alleged there were safety defects owing to defective warnings given about the trampoline's design features and risks of suffering foot injuries.

In this episode we consider the recent case decided by the Queensland Court of Appeal of Springfree Trampoline v Forostenko [2024] QCA 255, which involved a claim brought in negligence and s138 of the Australian Consumer Law against Springfree Trampoline for a trampoline accident on the basis that it was alleged there were safety defects owing to defective warnings given about the trampoline's design features and risks of suffering foot injuries.

Springfree Trampoline v Forostenko

In this episode we consider the recent High Court of Australia case of Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41, which considered whether the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat could be held vicariously liable for the sexual abuse committed by a priest. In doing so, the Court considered whether the doctrine could be extended beyond employment relationships, to relationships "akin to employment" as has occurred under UK and Canadian common law.

In this episode we consider the recent High Court of Australia case of Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41, which considered whether the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat could be held vicariously liable for the sexual abuse committed by a priest. In doing so, the Court considered whether the doctrine could be extended beyond employment relationships, to relationships "akin to employment" as has occurred under UK and Canadian common law.

Bird v DP 

In this episode we look at Roberts v Shimmin [2024] NSWDC 171, a recent successful medical negligence proceeding brought against a treating orthopaedic surgeon in respect of a negligently-performed total knee replacement surgery peformed in 2012 on a Plaintiff with no knee cap which had been removed years earlier in a patellectomy in 1982.

In this episode we look at Roberts v Shimmin [2024] NSWDC 171, a recent successful medical negligence proceeding brought against a treating orthopaedic surgeon in respect of a negligently-performed total knee replacement surgery peformed in 2012 on a Plaintiff with no knee cap which had been removed years earlier in a patellectomy in 1982.

Neindorf v Junkovic

In 1 playlist(s)

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips