Filipovic v Colonia Insurance [2002] NSWCA 118

Filipovic v Colonia Insurance [2002] NSWCA 118

The appeals were dismissed because the trial judge correctly construed reg 157(4)(e) and made findings open on the evidence that the helicopter was flying below 500 feet and was not in the course of actually landing when it crashed. The pilot had not committed the aircraft to come to the ground for landing, the helicopter would have needed to gain height to land on the flat land, and the pilot could not see the intended landing site from where the crash occurred. The regulation's exception therefore did not apply, and no error was shown in the trial judge's fact-finding or use of expert evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeals From Two Sets of Common Law Division Proceedings Arising Out of a Fatal Helicopter Crash and Insurance Indemnity Dispute / Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['aircraft Insurance Exclusions' 'low Flying' 'civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Reg 157' 'actual Landing Exception' 'indemnity' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings']
['insurance Law' 'aviation Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['aircraft Insurance Exclusions' 'low Flying' 'civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Reg 157' 'actual Landing Exception' 'indemnity' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings']

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

Appeals From Two Sets of Common Law Division Proceedings Arising Out of a Fatal Helicopter Crash and Insurance Indemnity Dispute / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the helicopter was flying in the course of actually landing at an aerodrome within Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 reg 157(4)(e) at the time of the crash.' 'Whether the insurer established that the aircraft was being used for unlawful low flying or low flying involving abnormal hazards so as to engage the policy exclusions.' "Whether the trial judge erred in construing the regulation, assessing the evidence, or relying on the expert evidence of Mr O'Dea."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because the trial judge correctly construed reg 157(4)(e) and made findings open on the evidence that the helicopter was flying below 500 feet and was not in the course of actually landing when it crashed. The pilot had not committed the aircraft to come to the ground for landing, the helicopter would have needed to gain height to land on the flat land, and the pilot could not see the intended landing site from where the crash occurred. The regulation's exception therefore did not apply, and no error was shown in the trial judge's fact-finding or use of expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeals dismissed with costs.']