Ravesi v National Australia Bank Limited [2014] FCA 99

Ravesi v National Australia Bank Limited [2014] FCA 99

Mr Ravesi did not instruct Mr Moore to omit the personal Asset Protection/Personal Protection cover. Mr Moore failed to procure the policy that Mr Ravesi had instructed and thereby breached contract; alternatively, if such an omission instruction had been given, Mr Moore breached his duty of care by failing to question and explain the significant departure from his own recommendation. MLC complied with the instructions and documents submitted to it, so the claim against MLC failed. Mr Ravesi's later failure to read the policy documents did not wholly break causation, but it was contributory negligence warranting a 40% reduction. NAB was vicariously liable for Mr Moore's conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Claim for Damages Arising From Insurance Advice, Including Negligence, Breach of Contract and Alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in the sum of $110,460; claim against the third defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'insurance Adviser' "implementation of Insured's Instructions" 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['negligence' 'contract' 'insurance' 'consumer Law'] ['duty of Care' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'insurance Adviser' "implementation of Insured's Instructions" 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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

Claim for Damages Arising From Insurance Advice, Including Negligence, Breach of Contract and Alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Moore properly implemented Mr Ravesi's instructions to obtain personal asset protection/personal protection insurance including TPD cover." 'Whether MLC failed to issue the policies as directed.' 'Whether Mr Moore or NAB contravened s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1975 (Cth).' "Whether any breach by Mr Moore caused Mr Ravesi's loss, or whether the loss was caused solely by Mr Ravesi's failure to read policy documents and replacement schedules." "Whether Mr Ravesi's damages should be reduced for contributory negligence." 'Whether Mr Ravesi or Affinity should have been advised to obtain business expenses insurance.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Ravesi did not instruct Mr Moore to omit the personal Asset Protection/Personal Protection cover. Mr Moore failed to procure the policy that Mr Ravesi had instructed and thereby breached contract; alternatively, if such an omission instruction had been given, Mr Moore breached his duty of care by failing to question and explain the significant departure from his own recommendation. MLC complied with the instructions and documents submitted to it, so the claim against MLC failed. Mr Ravesi's later failure to read the policy documents did not wholly break causation, but it was contributory negligence warranting a 40% reduction. NAB was vicariously liable for Mr Moore's conduct.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in the sum of $110,460; claim against the third defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • ['There is to be judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in the sum of $110,460.' 'The claim against the third defendant be dismissed.']