Mead v Allianz Australia Ltd [2006] NSWSC 366

Mead v Allianz Australia Ltd [2006] NSWSC 366

Liability was not properly denied under clause 21 because none of the judgments relied on contained a clear curial finding that the plaintiff's acts or omissions were malicious or reckless within the meaning of the Policy. The findings showed lack of objectivity, insufficient care, unreasonableness, impropriety in the Beddoe sense, or conduct falling short of the standards expected of a liquidator, but did not establish that the plaintiff acted with the predominant purpose of harming Mr Mead or with conscious indifference to a perceived risk of such harm.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Seeking Declaratory Relief as to Entitlement to Indemnity Under an Accountants Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy / Separate Determination of a Question Pursuant to Part 28 Rule 2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Outcome
Separate question answered: No.
Legal Topics
['professional Indemnity Insurance' 'policy Exclusion for Malicious or Reckless Acts or Omissions' 'separate Question' "liquidator's Costs Liabilities" 'construction of Insurance Policy']
['insurance Law' 'civil Procedure' 'corporations and Insolvency'] ['professional Indemnity Insurance' 'policy Exclusion for Malicious or Reckless Acts or Omissions' 'separate Question' "liquidator's Costs Liabilities" 'construction of Insurance Policy']

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

Proceedings Seeking Declaratory Relief as to Entitlement to Indemnity Under an Accountants Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy / Separate Determination of a Question Pursuant to Part 28 Rule 2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether liability under the Policy was properly denied pursuant to clause 21 of the Policy.' "Whether the plaintiff's claim was directly or indirectly based upon, attributable to, or in consequence of a malicious or reckless act or omission established by judgment or other final adjudication." 'Whether findings in judgments of Campbell J, Gzell J and the Court of Appeal established malicious or reckless conduct by the plaintiff within clause 21 of the Policy.']

Ratio Decidendi

Liability was not properly denied under clause 21 because none of the judgments relied on contained a clear curial finding that the plaintiff's acts or omissions were malicious or reckless within the meaning of the Policy. The findings showed lack of objectivity, insufficient care, unreasonableness, impropriety in the Beddoe sense, or conduct falling short of the standards expected of a liquidator, but did not establish that the plaintiff acted with the predominant purpose of harming Mr Mead or with conscious indifference to a perceived risk of such harm.

Court Disposition

Separate question answered: No.

Orders

  • ['The answer to the separate question is "No".' 'The matter is listed for directions on 12 May 2006 and for any costs argument should the parties not be able to agree on a costs order.']