Petersen Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Limited [2017] FCA 699

Petersen Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Limited [2017] FCA 699

The AmTrust ATE insurance policy offered as security did not provide sufficient protection to the respondents due to its limitations, exclusions, potential for cancellation, and practical enforcement issues. The respondents are entitled to security for costs in the amounts determined, to be provided by payment into court or an appropriately worded bank guarantee, not merely by the ATE policy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding (class Action) / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs by respondents granted; AmTrust ATE insurance policy is not sufficient security.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'litigation Funding' 'representative Proceedings' 'after the Event Insurance (ate Insurance)' 'third Party Claims Against Insurers']
['civil Procedure' 'commercial Law' 'corporations Law' 'insurance Law'] ['security for Costs' 'litigation Funding' 'representative Proceedings' 'after the Event Insurance (ate Insurance)' 'third Party Claims Against Insurers']

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

Representative Proceeding (class Action) / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an ATE insurance policy is a sufficient form of security for costs in a class action funded by a litigation funder' 'What amount and form of security for costs should be ordered']

Ratio Decidendi

The AmTrust ATE insurance policy offered as security did not provide sufficient protection to the respondents due to its limitations, exclusions, potential for cancellation, and practical enforcement issues. The respondents are entitled to security for costs in the amounts determined, to be provided by payment into court or an appropriately worded bank guarantee, not merely by the ATE policy.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs by respondents granted; AmTrust ATE insurance policy is not sufficient security.

Orders

  • ['Parties to bring in agreed or proposed orders giving effect to the reasons by 4:00 pm on 28 June 2017.' 'Security to be provided by no later than one calendar month after the orders are made, either by payment into court or bank guarantee from an Australian trading bank (or other agreeing form).' 'If security is...