HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY V QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED SC 54/2005
Leave to appeal was refused because the dispute was fact‑specific and did not raise questions of general, public or commercial importance, the new argument raised in this Court was likewise fact‑specific, and on the material the Ministry had knowledge of circumstances that could give rise to a claim; accordingly it...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 54/2005
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty's Attorney-General in respect of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; Respondent: QBE Insurance (International) Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 March 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Insurance Cover, Run Off Cover, Exclusion Clause, Leave to Appeal, Public and Commercial Importance
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty's Attorney-General in respect of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Appellant
QBE Insurance (International) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the series of insurance policies provided cover for the Ministry's claimed liability
- 2 Whether condition 5 provided run-off cover applicable to the claim
- 3 Whether condition 6 in later policies excluded cover for the claim
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the dispute was fact‑specific and did not raise questions of general, public or commercial importance, the new argument raised in this Court was likewise fact‑specific, and on the material the Ministry had knowledge of circumstances that could give rise to a claim; accordingly it was not necessary in the interests of justice to grant leave under s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500.00 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY V QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED SC 54/2005 10 March 2006IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 54/2005 [2006] NZSC 6BETWEEN HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY- GENERAL IN RESPECT OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Appellant AND QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 27 February 2006 Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ Counsel: H S Hancock for Appellant M G Ring QC for Respondent Judgment: 10 March 2006JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500.00 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. REASONS[1] The Attorney-General, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, seeks leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal holding that the Ministry had no insurance cover in respect of a claim made against it for financial compensation.[2] A series of policies had been issued by or taken over by the respondent (QBE) but the Court of Appeal held that none of them provided cover for this particular claim. The earlier policies did not contain condition 5 providing the necessary run-off cover; and the later policies, while containing condition 5, also contained, as condition 6, a provision which had the effect of excluding cover for this particular claim. [3] The case turns very much on its own particular facts. We cannot discern any question of general or public importance that would arise on the proposed appeal. Nor is there any question of general commercial significance. [4] A new argument was raised for the first time in this Court. It too, however, is particular to the facts of this case and raises no point of general significance. In any event we consider that, on receipt of Wild J's judgment, the Ministry undoubtedly had knowledge of circumstances that could well give rise to a claim for damages or compensation against it. [5] For these reasons we are not persuaded that it is necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to hear the proposed appeal. We must therefore decline leave in terms of s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington for Appellant McElroys, Auckland for Respondent