Zeini v Intersen Pty Limited & Anor [2006] NSWSC 107

Zeini v Intersen Pty Limited & Anor [2006] NSWSC 107

In light of the Court of Appeal decisions in Multiplex and Gordian Runoff, Intersen did not have an arguable case that GIO was liable under the common law extension to Uneed's workers compensation policy for Uneed's alleged contractual liability to Intersen. Leave was therefore refused for the contractual liability...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave Under S6 of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 to Commence Proceedings by Way of Cross Claim Against an Insurer / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Leave to cross-claim against GIO was granted only on condition that Intersen not plead or rely on the contractual liability allegations; leave was refused in respect of the contractual claim. Intersen was ordered to pay GIO's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['direct Action Against Insurer Under S6 of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946' 'common Law Extension to Workers Compensation Policy' 'contractual Indemnity' 'contribution in Tort']
['insurance Law' 'workers Compensation' 'civil Procedure' 'contribution and Indemnity'] ['direct Action Against Insurer Under S6 of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946' 'common Law Extension to Workers Compensation Policy' 'contractual Indemnity' 'contribution in Tort']

Source-derived case record

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 Leave Under S6 of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 to Commence Proceedings by Way of Cross Claim Against an Insurer / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Intersen should be granted leave under s6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 to cross-claim against GIO as workers compensation insurer of Uneed.' "Whether it was arguable that the common law extension to Uneed's workers compensation policy responded to Intersen's contractual indemnity claim against Uneed." "Whether leave should be restricted to the claim relating to Uneed's tortious liability and contribution."]

Ratio Decidendi

In light of the Court of Appeal decisions in Multiplex and Gordian Runoff, Intersen did not have an arguable case that GIO was liable under the common law extension to Uneed's workers compensation policy for Uneed's alleged contractual liability to Intersen. Leave was therefore refused for the contractual liability part of the proposed cross-claim, but granted conditionally for the claim relating to Uneed's tortious liability.

Court Disposition

Leave to cross-claim against GIO was granted only on condition that Intersen not plead or rely on the contractual liability allegations; leave was refused in respect of the contractual claim. Intersen was ordered to pay GIO's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to Intersen, pursuant to s6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, to commence proceedings by way of cross-claim against GIO.' 'Order 1 is subject to the condition that in any such cross-claim, or other proceeding brought by Intersen against GIO pursuant to this leave, Intersen is...