Auto & General Insurance Company Limited v President, Anti-Discrimination Board [2010] NSWADT 229

Auto & General Insurance Company Limited v President, Anti-Discrimination Board [2010] NSWADT 229

The exemption was refused because the proposed differential pricing by marital or domestic status was not appropriate or reasonable, was not necessary in any compelling sense, had adverse social and market impacts, depended on weak to marginal actuarial data, and the proposed conditions would undermine the fair operation of insurance markets by limiting ordinary consequences of non-disclosure while still using marital or domestic status as a pricing factor.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Refusal to Grant Exemption Under Anti Discrimination Act 1977, S 126 / Decision After Hearing in the Equal Opportunity Division
Outcome
Application for exemption refused; decision under review affirmed.
Legal Topics
['motor Accident Insurance' 'marital or Domestic Status Discrimination' 'exemption Orders' 'actuarial Data' 'merits Review']
['equal Opportunity' 'anti Discrimination' 'administrative Law' 'insurance Law'] ['motor Accident Insurance' 'marital or Domestic Status Discrimination' 'exemption Orders' 'actuarial Data' 'merits Review']

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

Application for Review of Refusal to Grant Exemption Under Anti Discrimination Act 1977, S 126 / Decision After Hearing in the Equal Opportunity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted an exemption permitting differential motor vehicle insurance premium pricing by reference to marital or domestic status.' 'Whether the proposed exemption was appropriate, reasonable and necessary under Anti-Discrimination Regulation 2009, cl 5.' "Whether the applicants' actuarial data was sufficient to support the proposed differential pricing." 'Whether the proposed conditions would avoid or reduce adverse discriminatory effects.']

Ratio Decidendi

The exemption was refused because the proposed differential pricing by marital or domestic status was not appropriate or reasonable, was not necessary in any compelling sense, had adverse social and market impacts, depended on weak to marginal actuarial data, and the proposed conditions would undermine the fair operation of insurance markets by limiting ordinary consequences of non-disclosure while still using marital or domestic status as a pricing factor.

Court Disposition

Application for exemption refused; decision under review affirmed.

Orders

  • ['Application for exemption refused.' 'Decision under review affirmed.']