Ishak v Taoube [2019] NSWDC 46

Ishak v Taoube [2019] NSWDC 46

The Insurer had provided particulars alleging that the claim was not made in good faith, satisfying the condition in s 119(1). Taking the evidence at its highest on the interlocutory application, the Insurer had established more than the possibility of false information: its suspicion of collusion between the Plaintiff and Defendant was not fanciful and had a prima facie basis. As the Plaintiff identified no discretionary reason against joinder, it was in the interests of justice that the Insurer be joined as a party.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages Proceeding for Personal Injury Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Insurer's Notice of Motion for Joinder Pursuant to S 119(1) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw)
Outcome
Insurer to be joined as a party to the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['joinder of Insurer' 'good Faith Claim' 'alleged Collusion' 'ctp Insurance' 'interlocutory Application']
['personal Injury' 'motor Accidents' 'insurance' 'civil Procedure'] ['joinder of Insurer' 'good Faith Claim' 'alleged Collusion' 'ctp Insurance' 'interlocutory Application']

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

Civil Damages Proceeding for Personal Injury Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Insurer's Notice of Motion for Joinder Pursuant to S 119(1) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the insurer should be joined as a party to the proceedings pursuant to s 119(1) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW).' 'Whether there was a prima facie basis for finding that the claim had not been made in good faith.' "Whether the insurer's suspicion of collusion between the Plaintiff and Defendant was fanciful or had a prima facie basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Insurer had provided particulars alleging that the claim was not made in good faith, satisfying the condition in s 119(1). Taking the evidence at its highest on the interlocutory application, the Insurer had established more than the possibility of false information: its suspicion of collusion between the Plaintiff and Defendant was not fanciful and had a prima facie basis. As the Plaintiff identified no discretionary reason against joinder, it was in the interests of justice that the Insurer be joined as a party.

Court Disposition

Insurer to be joined as a party to the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['AAMI Insurance is to be joined as a party to the proceedings.' 'The parties will be heard as to the costs of the application and any consequential orders.']