EXPERIENCE & EXPERTISE
James has extensive experience in civil and regulatory proceedings arising in the context of health services, and has acted for a wide range of health professionals, including hospitals, doctors, dentists and various allied health professionals. This include catastrophic, dependency claims and ‘fast-tracked’ terminally ill claims.
James has also represented doctors and allied health professionals in regulatory proceedings concerning performance, impairment and registration, as well as coronial inquests and Royal Commissions of Inquiry.
Additionally, James provides front-end advice and assistance to a wide range of health, biomedical and aged care businesses, including crisis management and post-incident investigation assistance.
Prior to joining Moray & Agnew, James was the managing director of a large multi-disciplinary allied health business, which enabled him to develop both his commercial approach to dispute resolution and provide a unique insight into the practical operation of the health and aged care sectors.
James brings a practical and commercial approach to dispute resolution, which focuses on minimising costs, reducing risk and proactively resolving disputes.
James’ experience includes:
- Acting for international health care providers in inquests arising from the deaths of a patients in the care of an offshore facility
- Acting for German insurers in a claim advanced by children of the deceased following the high profile death of a patient in the care of a locum doctor
- Acting for French insurers in a claim arising from the failure of a brain implant device, resulting in parts of the product lodging in the Claimant’s brain
- Successfully acting for insurers in a landmark test case concerning the application of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Acting for insurers in a CAR policy dispute with their insured, the owners of a Caribbean hotel development affected by Hurricane Ivan in 2004, with a claim value of US$236 million
- Advising insurer (and subsequently co-insurers) in connection with a claim advanced by an insured arising from the theft of goods by an employee over a period of eight years. The dispute included arguments as to whether the policy provided ‘fidelity’ cover (contrary to the existing wording) and therefore required rectification, whether or not there had been a breach of a condition precedent (claims co-operation); whether the excess under the policy applied on both the business interruptions and loss of stock elements of the claim separately, and whether the excess applied to each and every act of theft.