Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Limited v Gordian Runoff Limited (formerly GIO Insurance Limited) & Ors [2006] NSWSC 362

Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Limited v Gordian Runoff Limited (formerly GIO Insurance Limited) & Ors [2006] NSWSC 362

BHE failed to establish any triable issue or legal entitlement to indemnity under the AMPG policy for a supposed second claim, and any claims for ongoing cross-claim costs or extra design/construction costs were excluded by the settlement deed and did not fall within the policy. AMPG was therefore entitled to judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure / Application for Judgment (ex Tempore) on Triable Issue
Outcome
Proceedings against AMPG dismissed (judgment for eleventh defendant)
Legal Topics
['professional Indemnity Insurance' 'indemnity for Claims Under Insurance Contract' 'no Triable Issue' 'settlement Deed Effect']
['insurance Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['professional Indemnity Insurance' 'indemnity for Claims Under Insurance Contract' 'no Triable Issue' 'settlement Deed Effect']

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

Practice and Procedure / Application for Judgment (ex Tempore) on Triable Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether BHE was entitled to indemnity for a second claim under the AMPG policy' 'Whether costs related to cross-claims or design/construction costs are recoverable under policy' 'Whether there existed a triable issue as to further recovery from AMPG']

Ratio Decidendi

BHE failed to establish any triable issue or legal entitlement to indemnity under the AMPG policy for a supposed second claim, and any claims for ongoing cross-claim costs or extra design/construction costs were excluded by the settlement deed and did not fall within the policy. AMPG was therefore entitled to judgment.

Court Disposition

Proceedings against AMPG dismissed (judgment for eleventh defendant)

Orders

  • ['Orders 1 and 2 made in terms of short minutes initialled and dated 2 March 2006' 'Costs of the eleventh defendant stood over to a date to be fixed by the Court']