ANTICO v CE HEATH CASUALTY AND GENERAL INSURANCE LTD and ANOR [NO 2] [1996] NSWCA 18

ANTICO v CE HEATH CASUALTY AND GENERAL INSURANCE LTD and ANOR [NO 2] [1996] NSWCA 18

By majority, the Court held that the letter of 5 September 1990 did not constitute notification under the policy or section 40(3), and therefore, there was no breach of duty by the broker; thus, the cross appeal should be dismissed, with costs to the first cross respondent.

Parties
Appellant/insured/first Cross Respondent: Sir Tristan Antico; Respondent/insurer: CE Heath Casualty and General Insurance Ltd; Second Respondent/cross Appellant/broker: Heath Fielding Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Post Judgment Orders (variation/clarification)
Outcome
cross appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Notification Under Policy, Breach of Retainer, Costs, Cross Appeal
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Notification Under Policy Breach of Retainer Costs Cross Appeal

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

Sir Tristan Antico

Appellant/insured/first Cross Respondent

CE Heath Casualty and General Insurance Ltd

Respondent/insurer

Heath Fielding Australia Pty Ltd

Second Respondent/cross Appellant/broker

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Post Judgment Orders (variation/clarification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter of 5 September 1990 from Heath Fielding to CE Heath constitutes notification under the insurance policy and section 40(3) Insurance Contracts Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether Heath Fielding breached the implied terms of its retainer with Sir Tristan Antico by failing to notify CE Heath or advise Sir Tristan to do so
  3. 3 Whether, if a duty existed, Heath Fielding breached that duty

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the letter of 5 September 1990 did not constitute notification under the policy or section 40(3), and therefore, there was no breach of duty by the broker; thus, the cross appeal should be dismissed, with costs to the first cross respondent.

Court Disposition

cross appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Cross appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Add to orders of 30 January 1996: cross appeal dismissed with costs.