Franklin v Coal Mines Insurance Limited (No 2) [2024] NSWDDT 13

Franklin v Coal Mines Insurance Limited (No 2) [2024] NSWDDT 13

The plaintiff was put to unnecessary expense due to CMI's failure to promptly and accurately produce relevant insurance documents, therefore CMI should pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to proceed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Luke Verne Franklin; First Defendant: Coal Mines Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Proceed Against Insurer in Dust Diseases Tribunal / Costs Determination Following Leave Application
Outcome
Costs awarded to plaintiff for application for leave to proceed against first defendant.
Legal Topics
Costs of Application for Leave to Sue Insurer, Production of Insurance Documents, Monopoly Insurer Practices
Insurance Law Workers Compensation Dust Diseases Costs of Application for Leave to Sue Insurer Production of Insurance Documents Monopoly Insurer Practices

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke Verne Franklin

Plaintiff

Coal Mines Insurance Limited

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Proceed Against Insurer in Dust Diseases Tribunal / Costs Determination Following Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of application for leave to proceed against insurer should follow the event
  2. 2 Whether insurer failed to provide timely and accurate insurance information

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was put to unnecessary expense due to CMI's failure to promptly and accurately produce relevant insurance documents, therefore CMI should pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to proceed.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to plaintiff for application for leave to proceed against first defendant.

Orders

  • Order that the first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the plaintiff's application for leave to proceed against the first defendant.