Watson v Hannover Life Re of Australasia Limited [2018] NSWSC 877

Watson v Hannover Life Re of Australasia Limited [2018] NSWSC 877

The Plaintiff had been made aware of the hearing date, the need to appear, and the possibility that the Court might deal with the matter in his absence. He did not appear when the matter was called several times, gave no explanation, and there was no reason to think an adjournment would make his attendance more likely. In those circumstances it was proper to dismiss the proceedings under UCPR r 29.7(4) and order the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants' costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings by Statement of Claim Challenging Rejection of Total and Permanent Disablement Benefit Claim / Hearing; Defendants' Application for Dismissal of Proceedings for Plaintiff's Non Appearance Under UCPR R 29.7(4)
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Defendants' costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['non Appearance at Hearing' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'ucpr R 29.7' 'total and Permanent Disablement Benefit' 'group Life Insurance Policy']
['practice and Procedure' 'superannuation' 'insurance'] ['non Appearance at Hearing' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'ucpr R 29.7' 'total and Permanent Disablement Benefit' 'group Life Insurance Policy']

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

Equity Proceedings by Statement of Claim Challenging Rejection of Total and Permanent Disablement Benefit Claim / Hearing; Defendants' Application for Dismissal of Proceedings for Plaintiff's Non Appearance Under UCPR R 29.7(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Plaintiff had knowledge or notice of the hearing date and failed to appear or be represented.' 'Whether the Court should dismiss the proceedings under UCPR r 29.7(4) rather than adjourn the hearing of its own motion.' "Whether the Plaintiff should pay the Defendants' costs if the proceedings were dismissed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff had been made aware of the hearing date, the need to appear, and the possibility that the Court might deal with the matter in his absence. He did not appear when the matter was called several times, gave no explanation, and there was no reason to think an adjournment would make his attendance more likely. In those circumstances it was proper to dismiss the proceedings under UCPR r 29.7(4) and order the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants' costs.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Defendants' costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Notes that the matter was called outside the Court and that there has been no appearance by, or on behalf of, the Plaintiff.' 'Grants leave to the Defendants to file in Court the Affidavit of Michael Iacuzzi sworn 7 June 2018.' 'Orders that the Statement of Claim be dismissed.' "Orders that the Plaintiff pay the...