Richmond Valley Council v JLT Risk Solutions Pty Ltd (Merck Orders No 2) [2021] NSWSC 658

Richmond Valley Council v JLT Risk Solutions Pty Ltd (Merck Orders No 2) [2021] NSWSC 658

Question 7 was not a trial question and was inutile because it sought inappropriately to reserve to the defendant an entitlement to cavil before the trial judge with rulings already made, while the trial judge in any event controls what questions are determined at trial. The dispute over whether JLT 'placed or arranged insurance' was an unproductive semantic debate because the relevant conduct was not disputed; questions 4 and 6 should proceed using neutral wording directed to the substance of JLT's assistance and the legal consequences flowing from it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceedings; Equity Commercial List Procedural Ruling / On the Papers; Final Formulation of Merck Order Questions for Initial Trial
Outcome
Question 7 will not go forward; Questions 4 and 6 will go forward with amendments; otherwise the agreed questions will go forward.
Legal Topics
['merck Order' 'common Questions' 'initial Trial' 'fiduciary Duty' 'insurance Broker Duties']
['civil Procedure' 'representative Proceedings' 'equity' 'insurance'] ['merck Order' 'common Questions' 'initial Trial' 'fiduciary Duty' 'insurance Broker Duties']

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 Proceedings; Equity Commercial List Procedural Ruling / On the Papers; Final Formulation of Merck Order Questions for Initial Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proposed Question 7 should go forward as a question for initial trial.' "Whether proposed subparagraphs 4(c) and 6(c), concerning JLT's role in placing or arranging property and/or public liability and professional indemnity insurance, should be included or amended." 'What formulation of the agreed and disputed questions should be used for the initial trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Question 7 was not a trial question and was inutile because it sought inappropriately to reserve to the defendant an entitlement to cavil before the trial judge with rulings already made, while the trial judge in any event controls what questions are determined at trial. The dispute over whether JLT 'placed or arranged insurance' was an unproductive semantic debate because the relevant conduct was not disputed; questions 4 and 6 should proceed using neutral wording directed to the substance of JLT's assistance and the legal consequences flowing from it.

Court Disposition

Question 7 will not go forward; Questions 4 and 6 will go forward with amendments; otherwise the agreed questions will go forward.

Orders

  • ['Question 7 will not go forward.' 'Questions 4 and 6 will each go forward with the following amendments: there will be inserted at the end of the chapeau the words "doing one or more or all of"; the word "and" at the end of subparagraph (b) will be deleted; subparagraph (c) will read: "providing such assistance as...