Advanced Arbor Services Pty Limited v Phung

Advanced Arbor Services Pty Limited sought recovery of payments made to a dentist after a trainee, under the Australian Traineeship System, suffered a workplace injury. The trainee was referred to a dentist for treatment, but the dentist performed unnecessary and excessive treatment. The insurer, acting on behalf of the employer, claimed the treatment was so inexcusably bad it constituted a novus actus interveniens. The insurer sought to recover the payments made to the dentist by the employer, arguing that the proceedings could be brought in the employer's name. Issues included whether the insurer could bring proceedings in the employer's name, subrogation, restitution/unjust enrichment, contract, and misleading or deceptive conduct.

The court found that the insurer could bring the proceedings in the employer's name due to the employer's assignment of the cause of action to the insurer. The court also found that the insurer was entitled to recover the payments made to the dentist under the principles of restitution/unjust enrichment. The court held that the dentist's conduct amounted to a novus actus interveniens, and the employer was not liable for the excessive treatment. The court further found that the insurer was entitled to recover the payments made to the dentist under the principles of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct. The court granted the insurer relief, including damages for the unnecessary treatment and costs.

The court ordered the trainee to pay the insurer the sum of $10,000, together with interest and costs. The court also ordered the dentist to pay the insurer the sum of $20,000, together with interest and costs. The court found that the insurer was entitled to recover the payments made to the dentist under the principles of restitution/unjust enrichment, contract, and misleading or deceptive conduct. The court held that the employer was not liable for the excessive treatment performed by the dentist, and the insurer was entitled to recover the payments made to the dentist. The court further found that the insurer was entitled to damages for the unnecessary treatment and costs.