Greensill Capital Pty Ltd & Ors v BCC Trade Credit Pty Ltd & Ors [2021] NSWSC 167

Greensill Capital Pty Ltd & Ors v BCC Trade Credit Pty Ltd & Ors [2021] NSWSC 167

The interlocutory mandatory injunction was refused because, although the construction point under cl 4.2 was assumed to be arguable for interlocutory purposes, it was not strong, and the balance of convenience did not favour compelling IAL to provide cover. The potential consequences for Greensill were serious, but IAL faced potentially very large uninsured exposure because it had not effected reinsurance beyond expiry, and Greensill delayed seeking relief until hours before the policies expired despite knowing the underwriters' position since at least 1 September 2020.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent After Hours Application for Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction in the Equity Commercial List / Interlocutory
Outcome
Interlocutory mandatory injunction refused
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Mandatory Injunctions' 'trade Credit Insurance' 'renewal of Insurance Policies' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience']
['practice and Procedure' 'insurance'] ['interlocutory Mandatory Injunctions' 'trade Credit Insurance' 'renewal of Insurance Policies' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Urgent After Hours Application for Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction in the Equity Commercial List / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the insurer was obliged to renew the trade credit insurance policies because notice under cl 4.2 was not given at least 180 days before expiry.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured an interlocutory mandatory injunction compelling Insurance Australia Limited to provide cover after expiry of the policies.' "Whether Greensill's delay in bringing the application weighed against interlocutory relief."]

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory mandatory injunction was refused because, although the construction point under cl 4.2 was assumed to be arguable for interlocutory purposes, it was not strong, and the balance of convenience did not favour compelling IAL to provide cover. The potential consequences for Greensill were serious, but IAL faced potentially very large uninsured exposure because it had not effected reinsurance beyond expiry, and Greensill delayed seeking relief until hours before the policies expired despite knowing the underwriters' position since at least 1 September 2020.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory mandatory injunction refused

Orders

  • ['The application for interlocutory mandatory injunction requiring Insurance Australia Limited to provide cover under the policies was refused.']