Amlin Corporate Member Ltd v Austcorp Project No 20 Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 78

Amlin Corporate Member Ltd v Austcorp Project No 20 Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 78

The Commercial List Response was not a Claim within the meaning of the policies because it did not fall within sub-clause (a), was not a counter-claim, suit or civil proceeding brought against LM, and was defensive in nature seeking reduction or discharge of Mr Wong's liability rather than relief against LM. It also was not a Claim for any civil liability because it did not seek establishment by judgment of LM's responsibility in law to Bellpac or Mr Wong. Any loss claimed by the plaintiffs in the current proceedings did not arise from the Commercial List Response, since LM could not be found liable for those losses in the proceeding in which the response was filed. The primary judge...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Orders Determining a Separate Question Concerning the Interpretation of Professional Indemnity Insurance Contracts / Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['professional Indemnity Insurance' 'claims Made Policy' 'definition of Claim and Counter Claim' 'civil Liability' "insurer's Obligation to Indemnify" 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision']
['insurance' 'practice and Procedure'] ['professional Indemnity Insurance' 'claims Made Policy' 'definition of Claim and Counter Claim' 'civil Liability' "insurer's Obligation to Indemnify" 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Orders Determining a Separate Question Concerning the Interpretation of Professional Indemnity Insurance Contracts / Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commercial List Response filed and served before the policies incepted was a Claim within the meaning of the insurance policies.' 'Whether any liability of LM Investment Management to the plaintiffs in the proceeding below was loss arising from the Commercial List Response.' 'Whether the Commercial List Response was a Claim for any civil liability within the insuring clause.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory decision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commercial List Response was not a Claim within the meaning of the policies because it did not fall within sub-clause (a), was not a counter-claim, suit or civil proceeding brought against LM, and was defensive in nature seeking reduction or discharge of Mr Wong's liability rather than relief against LM. It also was not a Claim for any civil liability because it did not seek establishment by judgment of LM's responsibility in law to Bellpac or Mr Wong. Any loss claimed by the plaintiffs in the current proceedings did not arise from the Commercial List Response, since LM could not be found liable for those losses in the proceeding in which the response was filed. The primary judge...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'The appeal be dismissed with costs.']