EXPERIENCE & EXPERTISE
Narika has wide ranging previous legal experience including acting for private individuals in family law and estate planning matters. Her breadth of knowledge combined with her four years’ specialist insurance knowledge set her apart and enable her to approach matters with the technical expertise of an experienced defendant insurance lawyer and the insight of a general practice lawyer.
Narika is well known among both her clients and opposing practitioners for her meticulous attention to detail. She is regularly instructed in matters involving suspected fraud or exaggeration of claims, or otherwise requiring careful investigation and analysis. Narika’s clients appreciate her ability to synthesise complex factual and legal disputes and give straight forward, plain-language advice.
Acted for a solicitor in a claim for negligence arising out of the transfer of the plaintiff’s home to his adult daughter. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, with costs: Wu v Wu & Anor  ACTSC 360.
Appeared before the ACT Supreme Court and successfully sought that the plaintiff’s claim against a solicitor be summarily dismissed with costs, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success: Eastlund (a pseudonym) v Shavaiz  ACTSC 68.
Acted for the workers compensation insurer of a company said to be the ‘principal’ of an uninsured sub-contractor, and liable to make workers compensation payments to the sub-contractor’s injured worker pursuant to s 13 of the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT). The matter involved significant factual investigations into a web of related companies, and complex legal issues surrounding indemnity and potential rights of recovery. Narika ultimately identified the correct entity who was liable to make payments and persuaded the worker to seek those orders from the Court by consent. This freed her client from the ongoing litigation in relation to the worker’s statutory and common law entitlements, resulted in a costs order in her client’s favour, and secured for her client payback of the statutory payments that had been made upon initial receipt of the claim.
Acted for the defendant in a construction dispute matter. Identified early in engagement that the company that was named was not the entity which performed the work, and the limitation period had now passed. Negotiated for proceedings to be dismissed by consent with no order as to costs.