21 Mar 2025
Defendant's answers to the online declarations were false or non-disclosures of material facts relating to a named driver's prior convictions; the Defendant provided no basis for her belief that the answers were true; accordingly under s10(3) of the Ordinance the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that it may avoid the policy.
25 Sept 2023
Given the unchallenged evidence that Yeung was not the vehicle user, had registered the vehicle for another, did not have the keys and that the vehicle was lent to others, those undisclosed facts were material under s.10(5); Zurich proved it would not have issued the Policies on the same terms if informed, therefore under s.10(3) Zurich was entitled to a declaration avoiding the Policies.
23 Jun 2023
Given the unchallenged evidence (rental agreement, Facebook listing, and insurer's premium assessment evidence) the Court was satisfied the Policy was obtained by non-disclosure and false representation that the Vehicle was for private use and that a named driver would regularly drive it; those facts were material under s.10(5) and the insurer would have declined cover, therefore a declaration under s.10(3) was granted.
28 Apr 2023
The court granted a stay because all four statutory questions were satisfied: the policy contained a valid arbitration agreement; the arbitration clause was not inoperative or incapable of performance despite s.10(3) relief being reserved to the court; there was a real dispute between Falcon and Bing Lee about the policy's validity and the Deemed Waiver; and the dispute fell within the wide ambit of the Arbitration Clause. Accordingly the matters between Falcon and Bing Lee were ordered to arbitration and other related claims stayed pending its outcome.
8 Feb 2005
The court held that the incorrect chassis number, engine number, seating capacity and false ownership were material particulars that a prudent insurer would regard in underwriting because they go to the validity of vehicle registration and the risk; the plaintiff had no knowledge of the discrepancies and was not negligent in failing to discover them; the plaintiff relied on the representations and was induced to issue the policy; accordingly the insurer was entitled to avoid the policy and obtain declarations under s10(3) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance.
1 Dec 2003
Leave to amend the defence was granted but leave to add the counterclaim was refused because the insured delayed unreasonably in seeking the amendment, offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and addition at that late stage would cause prejudice and delay to the plaintiff; a separate action is the appropriate vehicle for the insured's substantive claims and any question of waiver of arbitration or stay should be determined on an application under the Arbitration Ordinance.