Please browse our publications for our latest insights and news.
If you would like to be placed on any of our mailing lists, please complete the form below.
We are delighted to announce the promotion of Cristie Clements to the role of Senior associate in the Motor Injury Insurance...
Panetta McGrath Lawyers is delighted to announce that our firm has once again been listed as a leading health and aged care firm...
Panetta McGrath Lawyers is pleased to announce that we have been recognised in the 15th edition of the Best Lawyers in Australia...
Catch up with all our previous newsletters on our online archive.
This is a question we get asked all the time. The short answer is that, under the National Law , the notifier is protected from a defamation claim where a notification is made in good faith.
The Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal against a decision of the District Court and ordered a retrial.
Case Summary | GP found not to have breached his duty of care after delay in diagnosing patient’s terminal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
A plaintiff claimed damages against a GP alleging negligence at consultations in October 2016 and July 2017, leading to a delay in her diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. The Court found that whilst a prudent doctor with knowledge of the plaintiff’s history and circumstances may have taken a different approach to the GP, that did not mean that the defendant fell short of the relevant duty of care owed or that if there was a breach, any delay was causative of the plaintiff’s terminal prognosis.