APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY BETWEEN INSURERS AND CONTRACTORS
|
|
- Arnold Stevens
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY BETWEEN INSURERS AND CONTRACTORS Malcolm Stephens, Senior Associate, Allens Arthur Robinson Tuesday 17 May 2004 ymss S v Page 1
2 1. Introduction This paper considers issues which arise where: a company involved in a construction project suffers a loss (for example, damage to its property or the incurring of a liability); that company is entitled to be indemnified from an insurer; and that company also has a right to recover its loss from a contractor (whether in a claim for negligence or under a contractual indemnity). The 3 possible outcomes in this situation are that the ultimate loss: (c) lies with the insurer; lies with the contractor; or is shared between the insurer and the contractor. For the reasons explained in this paper, each of the above outcomes is possible, depending on the particular arrangements between the parties. In this paper the company which suffers the loss is referred to as the "owner" and the negligent insured is referred to as the "contractor". The issues considered, however, apply whether it is a principal, operator, contractor or sub-contractor which suffers the loss. In practice, an owner would normally first seek to be indemnified by its insurer. Section 2 of this paper considers the rights which an insurer then has to recover the amount of that indemnity from the contractor. Section 3 deals with the complications which can arise if that contractor is insured under the same policy, as is commonly the case, for example, in project specific policies. Section 4 considers issues which can arise if the parties seek to limit the right of an insurer to bring a subrogated claim whether with or without the insurer's consent. 2. The rights of an insurer against a contractor: Subrogation or Contribution? This section of the paper considers the right of an insurer, which has indemnified an owner, to recover the amount of that indemnity from a contractor. The complications which arise where the contractor is insured under the same policy are considered in section 3. Contractual attempts to vary the rights of the parties are considered in section Subrogation If the owner's property was damaged by the negligence of the contractor, it is well established that an insurer is entitled to bring a subrogated action against the contractor. That action is brought in the name of the owner and depends on the rights of the owner against the contractor. If it were not for the doctrine of subrogation, a contractor would be entitled to assert that any liability to the owner must be reduced to the extent that the owner has already been ymss S v Page 2
3 compensated for its loss by its insurer. The doctrine of subrogation was introduced because the law takes the view, essentially for policy reasons, that a negligent contractor should not be entitled to the benefit of an insurance policy independently arranged by the owner. 2.2 Contribution The doctrine of contribution applies where parties are under "co-ordinate liabilities" to make good the "one loss". A common example of "co-ordinate liabilities" occurs if 2 insurers are liable to indemnify the same loss. There are also limited rights to contribution under legislation for example, between joint tortfeasors or between marine insurers. The examples are not relevant, however, in determining the rights and obligations of insurers. Two important differences between contribution and subrogation are that: contribution gives a party which is liable for a loss a direct right against another party liable for that loss, whereas subrogation only entitles one party to stand in the shoes of the entity which it indemnified; and claiming contribution results in the liability being shared, whereas claiming subrogation results in a full recovery. 2.3 Contractor's indemnity: contribution or subrogation? As explained above, an insurer is entitled to bring a subrogated action, in the name of an owner, if the owner's property was damaged by the negligence of a contractor. If, however, an owner has a claim against a contractor under a contractual indemnity, rather than in negligence, a highly contentious issue is whether the insurer is entitled to bring a subrogated action against the contractor (in the name of the owner) or whether the insurer only has a right of contribution from the contractor. The two leading cases on this issue are the Elf judgment of the House of Lords 1 and the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Speno Elf: the facts The Elf litigation arose out of an explosion on an oil platform in the North Sea. Although the litigation involved many different claims, the relevant point of principle can be understood from the following sample facts: (c) (d) one cause of the explosion was negligence by the operator; injured workers therefore had a right to be compensated by the operators; the operators were indemnified by their insurers; and the operators also had a right to be indemnified by the contractors who employed the relevant workers. 1 Caledonia North Sea Limited v British Telecommunications plc (Scotland) & ors [2002] UKHL 4. 2 Speno Rail Maintenance Australia Pty Limited v Hamersley Iron Pty Limited (2000) 23 WAR 291. ymss S v Page 3
4 The insurers of the operator brought subrogated claims against the contractors seeking to recover under the indemnities. The contractors argued that the insurers were not entitled to bring subrogated claims against them but were only entitled to bring a claim for contribution. The essence of their reasoning was that the contractors and the insurers were both liable under contractual indemnities and that therefore their liabilities were "co-ordinate". 2.5 Elf: The decision The judge at first instance accepted the contractors' argument. This judgment caused great controversy around the common law world, as it had often been assumed that an insurer would always be entitled to bring a subrogated claim relying on a contractual indemnity. The decision of the trial judge was overturned on appeal. On a further appeal, the House of Lords also disagreed with the trial judge and held that, on the facts in Elf, the liability of the contractors was "primary" and the liability of the insurers was "secondary". The insurers were therefore entitled to bring subrogated claims against the contractors. The decision of the House of Lords has often been cited as authority for the proposition that an insurer is always entitled to bring a subrogated action against a party giving a contractual indemnity. One article even proclaimed, after the House of Lords decision, that "Elf is dead". A closer examination of the decision of the House of Lords, however, shows that it very much rested on the particular facts of that case. Although the novelty of the argument being put by the contractors was clearly an influence on the judgments in the House of Lords, those judgments were primarily based on the presumed intention of the parties. In particular, the House of Lords appears to have been particularly influenced by evidence of industry practice, in off-shore oil platforms, for the parties to indemnify each other against liability to each other's employees. That industry practice was reflected in the contracts under which the claims against the contractors were being brought. The House of Lords accepted that the purpose of this arrangement was to avoid protracted litigation (such as the Elf litigation), and replace it with the simple rule that each company will be liable to its own employees. The House of Lords believed that the position taken by the contractors in the Elf litigation was contrary to this industry practice. The House of Lords also emphasised that the operator was not obliged to take out the insurance which provided indemnity against claims by employees. The House of Lords did not believe that the contractors should be able to take advantage of any insurance contracts which the operator independently chose to take out. It is not clear whether the converse argument could have been made that the insurers should not be able to take advantage of an independent decision made by the operators to obtain contractual indemnities or whether the insurers were in fact aware of these indemnities. The judgments of the House of Lords therefore ultimately depended on the presumed intention of the parties that the contractors would be "primarily liable" and that the insurers would only be "secondarily liable". There will be many factual situations where such an ymss S v Page 4
5 intention cannot be presumed and where an insurer, consequently, would not be able to bring a subrogated action relying on a contractual indemnity provided to its insured. 2.6 Speno In Speno, unlike in Elf, it was the insurer which asserted that any claim it had against a third party which provided a contractual indemnity should be a claim for contribution, rather than a subrogated claim. The insurer in that case was unable to bring a subrogated action as it had not indemnified its insured. The judgment of the Full Court of the Western Australian Supreme Court was delivered after the first appeal in Elf (which found in favour of the insurers) but before the judgments in the House of Lords were delivered (which were also in favour of the insurers). The Full Court of the Western Australian Supreme Court agreed that, on the facts in Speno, the liability of the insurer was "secondary" rather than being "co-ordinate" with the contractors' obligation to indemnify, and that therefore contribution could not be claimed. In comparison with the judgments of the House of Lords in Elf, the judgments in Speno gave less weight to the factual background and more weight to the inherent differences between insurers and other parties providing contractual indemnities. The facts of Speno, however, did not provide the same opportunity for a detailed factual investigation as the facts of Elf. 2.7 Other Australian authorities The relationship between insurance indemnities and other contractual indemnities has been considered in the following factual situation: negligent driving by one employee injures another employee; the injured employee recovers from the employer; the employer has three sources of recovery: its workers' compensation insurer; its motor vehicle liability insurer; and the negligent employee. In Commercial and General Insurance Co Ltd v GIO (NSW) (1973) 129 CLR 374 the High Court assumed, although the matter was not argued before it, that a motor vehicle liability insurer could bring a subrogated claim against a negligent employee. A leading text 3 makes the following comment on this assumption. There is difficulty in accepting this [assumption], for it assumes that the insurer had available to it [the employer's] claim to indemnity by its employee but if the principle in Sydney Turf Club v Crowley (1971) 1 NSWLR 724 is correct it follows that, the obligation of the employee being a secondary one of indemnification, the employee, in an action brought by the employer on its own behalf, would have a good defence that the loss had already been met by the first insurer 3 Meagher RP, Heydon JD & Leeming MJ, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane's Equity: Doctrines and Remedies (4 th edition, 2002) at ymss S v Page 5
6 Therefore, did not [the insurers and the negligent employee] bear a co-ordinate liability to make good the one loss, so that each by contribution should bear one-third of the loss? This would be an application of that doctrine consistent with the formulation by Kitto J in Albion Insurance Co Ltd v GIO (NSW) (1969) 121 CLR 342 at These comments are relevant in determining rights between insurers and contractors, as the obligation of an employee to indemnify its employer is an implied term of the employment contract. The authors of this text therefore, assume that a contractual obligation to indemnify: is a secondary liability; and is "co-ordinate" with an insurer's liability to indemnify. An Australian court is likely to give the comments in this text similar weight to the Elf judgment, given the high regard of its current and former authors. It is, therefore, still very much an open question under Australian law whether, and in what circumstances, an insurer is entitled to bring a subrogated claim against a contractor providing an indemnity. 3. The rights of an insurer against a contractor insured under the same policy 3.1 The issues which arise A feature of project specific policies is that many entities involved in the project are insured under the same policy. It is frequently the case that, where one party suffers property damage indemnified by the insurer, that damage was caused by the negligence of another party insured under the same policy. There has been much litigation as to whether an insurer, in that situation, has a right to bring a subrogated claim against the negligent contractor. Sometimes the rights of an insurer in this situation are expressly dealt with by the policy. For example by a "waiver of subrogation" clause. These clauses are discussed in the next section, as are clauses under which the parties to the construction project attempt, between themselves, to impose ultimate liability on the insurer. There have been many cases in which it has been argued that, even in the absence of an express clause preventing an insurer bringing a subrogated action, an insurer is not entitled to bring a claim against a negligent insured. The main reasons discussed in the cases are: the principle of "circuity"; the notion that each contractor has an "insurable interest" in the entire contract works; an implied term in the insurance policy; or an implied term of the contract between the insureds. ymss S v Page 6
7 A further possible reason would be to assert that the presumed intention of the parties is that the insurance liability be primary (by analogy with the reasoning in Elf discussed above), which would prevent a subrogated claim being brought. 3.2 Circuity Some early English cases on this issue held that an insurer could not bring a subrogated action against a negligent insured because of the principle of "circuity" 4. In its narrow form, the argument was that the insured would in turn be indemnified by the insurer, and so the proceedings should therefore not be allowed. It has subsequently been pointed out on a number of occasions that relying on "circuity" in this narrow sense is inaccurate 5. The two main reasons are as follows. This is not an example of the legal defence of "circuity". That defence only operates where there is circuity between the parties to the litigation. In a subrogated action the insurer is not a party to the litigation (as the claim against the defendant is brought in the name of the insured). There is therefore no circuity in this technical sense. In these cases the negligent party has not in fact had a right to be indemnified by the insurer. There has therefore not in fact been any circuity. In addition to these two reasons, there is a practical consideration that an insurer is not going to bring a subrogated action against another insured if it is going to end up indemnifying that insured. It is therefore doubtful that notions of "circuity", in the narrow sense, can ever be of any assistance. There is, however, more support for a broader principle preventing subrogated claims relying on an "insurable interest" argument. This is considered in the next section. 3.3 Insurable interest A number of cases have held that each party involved in a construction project has an "insurable interest" in the entire construction project 6. The rationale for giving each party an insurable interest in the entire construction project is that the interests of each party could be affected by damage to the property of another party. The consequence of giving an each party an insurable interest in the entire project is that, in respect of any property damage, each party has a right to recover the entire loss from the insurers. In so far as property owned by entities other than the insured making the 4 See the judgments of Lloyd J in The Yasin [1979] 2 Lloyd's Rep 45 and in Petrofina (UK) Limited v Magnaload Limited [1984] QB 127 (the latter slightly qualified the former's reliance on circuity). 5 See the decisions of the English Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Co-operative Retail Services Limited and ors v Taylor Young Partnership & ors [2001] LRIR 122 (Court of Appeal) and [2002] UKHL 17 (House of Lords). 6 See for example the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Commonwealth Construction Co Ltd v Imperial Oil [1977] 69 DLR (3d) 558 and the decisions of Lloyd J referred to above. This reasoning was followed by Franklyn J in Co-operative Bulk Handling Limited v Jennings Industries Ltd (1986) 17WAR 257 (Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia). ymss S v Page 7
8 claim has been damaged, then the insured making the claim will hold the insurance proceeds on trust for those other insureds. If one follows this line of reasoning, the insured whose negligence caused the damage would have been entitled to recover from the insurer the loss resulting from that property damage (holding the proceeds on trust for the entities whose property was damaged). It may therefore be inappropriate to allow an insurer to bring a subrogated claim against the negligent insured if that insured would itself have been entitled to recover that loss from the insurer (thus negating any possibility of a subrogated action a party cannot sue itself). This reasoning is referred to in some cases as "circuity". This reasoning is commercially quite sensible, although it does involve a slightly artificial application of the principle of "insurable interest". The reasoning in these cases is arguably inconsistent with authorities on the meaning of "insurable interest" and may not by itself suffice to prevent a subrogated action. The reasoning has also been restricted to the particular circumstances of the parties insured under project specific policies. It does not apply, for example, in so far as a supplier of equipment asserts that it has an insurable interest in that equipment because it might be liable for its failure Implied term of an insurance policy It has alternatively been suggested that a term should be implied into an insurance policy preventing an insurer bringing a subrogated action against a negligent insured 8. Part of the justification for implying such a term is the reasoning set out above concerning "insurable interest". It is unlikely, however, that the strict requirements under Australian law for implying a term into a contract justify implying such a term into a project specific policy. For example, it is not necessary to imply such a term to give the policy commercial efficacy. Furthermore, the fact that express terms to this effect are frequently included in project specific policies makes it very unlikely that a court would imply such a term where the parties had, presumably intentionally, not included such an express term. 3.5 Implied term of contract between insureds An insurer bringing a subrogated claim against a negligent insured is exercising the rights of the insured which it has indemnified. It has been held that a term should be implied into the contract between the insureds preventing claims where one insured has been indemnified for its loss. It could be argued that such a term is implicit from the agreement between the two insureds requiring one insurance policy for the benefit of both. Even though there are much better prospects of implying such a term into a contract between insureds, than into an insurance contract, it will still be difficult to meet the strict requirements for implying a term into a contract. Once again, it is not necessary to imply such a term to give those contracts business efficacy. Nevertheless, the House of Lords 7 Maxitherm Boilers Pty Ltd v Pacific Dunlop Ltd & anor [1998] 4 VR See the judgments of Colman J in Stone Vickers Ltd v Appledore Ferguson Ship Builders Ltd [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep 288 and National Oilwell (UK) Ltd v Davy Off-Shore Ltd [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 582. ymss S v Page 8
9 has held that, depending on the particular contractual arrangements between the insureds, an obligation to take out insurance cover for the benefit of both parties may justify implying a term preventing claims between them in respect of insured losses Presumed Intention of the parties The most promising ground for a negligent insured to resist a subrogated claim may be to rely on the reasoning of the House of Lords in the Elf judgment. A contractual obligation to take out insurance for the benefit of both parties might well support an argument that the liability of the insurer was intended to be "primary". Although such an argument does not appear to have been raised before, it may represent the best chance for a negligent insured. 3.7 Conclusion The right under Australian law of an insurer to bring a subrogated action against a negligent insured is still very much an open issue. There has been little judicial consideration of the arguments referred to above. 4. Express Clauses Limiting Rights of Subrogation 4.1 Overview There are two means by which parties might seek to limit an insurer's right to bring a subrogated action against an insured: including a waiver of subrogation clause in the insurance policy; or including a clause in the agreements between the insureds which indirectly prevents a subrogated action being brought. Each of these is considered in turn. 4.2 Waiver of Subrogation Clauses An insurer might be willing to include a term in the insurance policy preventing it from bringing subrogated claims against other insureds. The courts will not read down such clauses. For example, a waiver of subrogation clause which simply prevents an insurer bringing claims against an insured will be effective to prevent a subrogated action even if: the cause of the insured's liability (eg professional negligence) is expressly excluded from the policy cover: GPS Power Pty Ltd v Gardiner Willis Associates Pty Ltd (Queensland Court of Appeal, 8 December 2001); and the subrogated claim does not relate to the incident which gave rise to the insurer's obligation to provide indemnity: Larson-Juhl Australia LLC v JayWest International Pty Limited (2000) 11 ANZ Ins Cas (New South Wales Court of Appeal the putative subrogated claim concerned alleged misleading conduct by the vendor 9 Co-operative Retail Services Limited and ors v Taylor Young Partnership & ors [2002] UKHL 17(25 April 2002) ymss S v Page 9
10 of unsafe premises, where that vendor also owned property stored at the premises and was therefore insured under the policy). If an insurer wishes to preserve a right to bring a subrogated claim against an insured for example in relation to conduct unrelated to the project then it will need to ensure that the waiver of subrogation clause is drafted accordingly. An insurer faced with a waiver of subrogation clause might consider bringing a claim for contribution, relying on the reasoning accepted at first instance in Elf. Although this would not breach a waiver of subrogation clause, it is likely that a court would not allow such a claim because the liabilities are not "co-ordinate", given the apparent intention that the insurers should be primarily liable for any loss (and, presumably, that the contractor's liability would be secondary). 4.3 Agreements between insureds: existing rights It is reasonably well established that an insured may not, as against its insurer, release or compromise existing rights in a manner which prejudices its insurer's right to subrogation. In the leading judgment on this issue 10, Barwick CJ stated (at 241): It is also settled law that an insured may not release, diminish, compromise or divert the benefit of any right to which the insurer is or will be entitled to succeed and enjoy under his right of subrogation. On occasions an attempt by the insured to do so will be ineffective against the insurer because of the knowledge of the circumstances which the person under obligation to the insured may have. On other occasions when the insured's act has become effective as against the insurer, the insured will be liable to the insurer in damages, or possibly, on some occasions for money had and received. But such conduct on the part of the insured will not in general avoid the insurer's liability to indemnify, though in some circumstances the insurer may be entitled to set off the amount of the damages against the amount otherwise payable under the indemnity. In a subsequent New South Wales Court of Appeal case it was stated that, in so far as the above passage suggests that any such release would be "ineffective" (particularly if the contractor was aware of the insurer's rights of subrogation), then that is incorrect 11. It was suggested in that case that the correct remedy for an insurer was probably a claim in damages for breach of an implied term of the insurance contract. If the contractor was aware of the insurer's rights of subrogation, there may also be a tortious claim against the contractor for inducing a breach of contract by the insured. There is therefore currently some doubt as to whether, if an insured releases a third party to the prejudice of its insurer, that release will be ineffective or whether the insurer will only have a claim in damages. 4.4 Agreements between insureds: future rights A further and more important issue is whether the parties can effectively diminish the rights of an insurer before those rights come into existence. In particular, can the parties agree 10 State Government Insurance Office (Old) v Brisbane Stevedoring Pty Limited (1969) CLR Sola Basic Australia Ltd v Morganite Ceramic Fibres Pty Ltd (Unreported, NSW CA, 11 May 1989, BC ) per Meagher J ymss S v Page 10
11 that, in so far as any future losses may occur, they will not be liable to each other to the extent that those losses are covered by insurance? Such clauses are now quite common. The common law on this issue is unclear, but it appears that the parties may limit the rights of an insurer in this manner. In the High Court case referred to above 12, the parties under a crane hire agreement agreed to exclude any rights of contribution that might rise against each other as joint tortfeasors. Following a subsequent injury, it was held that both parties were liable in negligence for that injury. The insurer of one of the parties (the employer of the injured worker) sought to reduce its liability to the extent that it was unable to obtain contribution from the other party. The High Court held that the insurer was not entitled to reduce its liability in this manner as the agreement between the parties "precluded rights arising" which, according to the High Court, "is quite a different matter" from a release, compromise or derogation from rights. The decision of the High Court depended, to an extent, on the particular facts of that case. There is therefore still some uncertainty at common law as to the extent to which such agreements might entitle an insurer to reduce its liability. In order to clarify this uncertainty, section 68 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 was introduced 13. This section, however, really addresses a slightly different issue. It provides that provisions in insurance policies limiting an insurer's liability, where its insured has entered into such an agreement, will be ineffective, unless the insurer clearly informed the insured in writing of the effect of the provision. The indirect consequence of this provision, however, is to make it extremely difficult for an insurer to seek to reduce its liability where the insurance policy contains no such provision. The existence of section 68 will make it almost impossible to imply a term into an insurance policy which prevents insureds entering into such agreements. 5. Recommendations The issues and cases discussed above demonstrate the importance of the parties involved in a construction project, together with their insurers, expressly specifying what rights, if any, the insurers will have to bring claims against other insureds. In the absence of express agreement, there is still considerable uncertainty as to the circumstances in which an insurer can bring a subrogated action against either: a contractor which has provided an indemnity to its insured; or a negligent contractor which is also insured under the policy. The following points should be considered when negotiating policies and agreements. Excluding waiver of subrogation clauses will not necessarily permit insurers to bring subrogated claims. For example, an insurer might be prevented from bringing subrogated claims by an express or implied term in the contract between its insured and another party. Insurers should therefore consider imposing an obligation on their insureds not to enter into agreements which have the effect of 12 State Government Insurance Office (Old) v Brisbane Stevedoring Pty Limited (1969) CLR ALRC 20, para 308. ymss S v Page 11
12 reducing rights of subrogation or contribution. The insured must be clearly informed of such a clause before it enters into the policy. (c) Parties involved in construction projects need to be careful, when negotiating their contracts, that they obtain their insurers' approval to any clauses which might have the effect of reducing rights of subrogation. This is obviously of particular importance where there is an express obligation in the policy not to enter into such agreements. It would, however, be prudent to adopt this course in any case. When drafting waiver of subrogation clauses, both parties should clarify whether there are any circumstances in which an insurer might bring a claim against an insured for example, whether an insurer might bring subrogated claims in respect of conduct that is unconnected with either the project or the risks covered by the insurer. Malcolm Stephens Senior Associate Allens Arthur Robinson 17 May 2004 ymss S v Page 12
Construction Projects and the Apportionment of Liability
Construction Projects and the Apportionment of Liability Insurance & Reinsurance Forum Wednesday 8 July 2009 Andrew Byrne, Senior Associate Allens Arthur Robinson Level 28 Deutsche Bank Place Corner Hunter
More informationContribution. Rights of contribution when one indemnifier not an insurer
Contribution When is contribution payable? 1. Where 2 or more insurers under contracts of indemnity insurance are liable in respect of a loss, an insurer who has paid the loss is entitled to contribution
More informationTHE THIRD RUNWAY CASE: BAULDERSTONE HORNIBROOK ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED V GORDIAN RUNOFF LIMITED
THE THIRD RUNWAY CASE: BAULDERSTONE HORNIBROOK ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED V GORDIAN RUNOFF LIMITED On 12 th April 2006 Einstein J delivered his judgment in Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Gordian
More informationTHE YEAR THAT WAS. Important High Court Insurance Cases In 2010
AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LAW ASSOCIATION (WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BRANCH) Cases presented at Annual General Meeting on 15 December 2010 THE YEAR THAT WAS Important High Court Insurance Cases In 2010 High Court
More informationProportionate liability and a case on denial of indemnity
JANUARY 2005 INSURANCE & REINSURANCE www.aar.com.au Inside: Proportionate liability provisions have now commenced in a number of Australian jurisdictions and their practical effects will be of great interest
More informationCase Note. Michele Muscillo * The Lesser of Two Evils: FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Australian Hospital Care Pty Ltd
Case Note Michele Muscillo * The Lesser of Two Evils: FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Australian Hospital Care Pty Ltd 1. INTRODUCTION The High Court s decision in FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Australian
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT IMPERIAL GROUP (PTY) LIMITED NCS RESINS (PTY) LIMITED
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: 197/06 In the matter between: IMPERIAL GROUP (PTY) LIMITED APPELLANT and NCS RESINS (PTY) LIMITED RESPONDENT CORAM: SCOTT,
More informationProfessional Indemnity Insurance - Claims made and notified policies - Sections 54 and 40(3) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)
UPDATE TO CN CONSTRUCTIVE NOTES May 2010 Professional Indemnity Insurance - Claims made and notified policies - Sections 54 and 40(3) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) The draft reform package
More informationUPDATE LITIGATION DECEMBER 2012 HUNT & HUNT LAWYERS V MITCHELL MORGAN NOMINEES PTY LTD & ORS
DECEMBER 2012 LITIGATION UPDATE HUNT & HUNT LAWYERS V MITCHELL MORGAN NOMINEES PTY LTD & ORS SNAPSHOT On 12 December 2012, the High Court of Australia heard the appeal by Hunt & Hunt Lawyers (Hunt & Hunt)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: RJK Enterprises P/L v Webb & Anor [2006] QSC 101 PARTIES: FILE NO: 2727 of 2006 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: RJK ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 055 443 466 (applicant)
More informationProfessional Standards Scheme Briefing paper for lawyers August 2017
Professional Standards Scheme Briefing paper for lawyers August 2017 DISCLAIMER This Guide has been prepared for use by members of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ) in Australia
More informationUNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES FACULTY OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES FACULTY OF LAW CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION INSURANCE CONTRACTS PRODUCTS AND CLAIMS RECENT INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE CASES - A QUICK AND PUNCHY ANNUAL REVIEW Michael Quinlan,
More informationTHIRD PARTY CLAIMS ON INSURANCE FUNDS: THE CHARGE IS OVER. Ivan Griscti Level 22 Chambers 22/52 Martin Place
THIRD PARTY CLAIMS ON INSURANCE FUNDS: THE CHARGE IS OVER Ivan Griscti Level 22 Chambers 22/52 Martin Place igriscti@level22.com.au Introduction 1. In the normal course a claim by a third party against
More informationCONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES TIPTOEING THROUGH THE MINEFIELD LIONEL PERSEY QC
CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES TIPTOEING THROUGH THE MINEFIELD LIONEL PERSEY QC What is consequential loss? In many commercial contracts, business people will seek to exclude any liability for consequential losses
More informationPart II: Handling Conflicts of Interest between Insured and Insurer: The Lawyer s Dilemma
Handling Professional Indemnity Coverage Issues in Cases of Suspected Fraud Part II: Handling Conflicts of Interest between Insured and Insurer: The Lawyer s Dilemma Alison Padfield Devereux A. Introduction
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA NOMPUMELELO PATRICIA NKOSI APPEAL JUDGMENT
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE CASE NO: AR20/10 In the matter between: NOMPUMELELO PATRICIA NKOSI APPELLANT Vs ALBAN MBUSO MBATHA RESPONDENT APPEAL
More informationHIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ PETER JAMES SHAFRON APPELLANT AND AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION RESPONDENT Shafron v Australian
More informationNORTHWEST INSURANCE LAW
NORTHWEST INSURANCE LAW QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER WINTER 2018 Williams Kastner has been serving clients in the Pacific Nor thwest since our Seattle office opened in 1929. With more than 60 attorneys in offices
More informationConveyancing and property
Editor: Peter Butt STATUTORY WARFARE, ROUND 2: HAS THE HIGH COURT CONFUSED THE LAW OF ILLEGALITY? In an earlier note in this column ( Statutory warfare? What happens when retail lease legislation collides
More informationGOOD NEWS FOR D&O POLICYHOLDERS ON DEFENCE COSTS - AUSTRALIAN POSITION ON BRIDGECORP CLARIFIED
GOOD NEWS FOR D&O POLICYHOLDERS ON DEFENCE COSTS - AUSTRALIAN POSITION ON BRIDGECORP CLARIFIED 01 February 2017 Australia Legal Briefings By Mark Darwin, Peter Holloway and Sophy Woodward The NSW Court
More informationCase Note September 2007
Case Note September 2007 CGU Limited v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd On Wednesday 29 August 2007 Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Kirby, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan handed down the judgement of the
More informationOdessa Marine Pty Ltd ACN Terms & Conditions of Trade
Odessa Marine Pty Ltd ACN 620 372 474 Terms & Conditions of Trade 1. Definitions and Interpretation 1.1 Unless otherwise specified the following words and phrases have the following meanings in these Terms:
More informationSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA. Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq., LEED AP June 3, 2017
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq., LEED AP June 3, 2017 2 Engineer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Client Suggested changes: Delete the word defend Edit
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Deer Oaks Office Park Owners Association v. State Farm Lloyds Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DEER OAKS OFFICE PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION, CIVIL
More informationSports Injuries and the Right to Compensation
Sports Injuries and the Right to Compensation Pauline Sadler and Rob Guthrie School of Business Law Curtin University of Technology Abstract This article discusses issues relating to workers compensation
More informationStandard Terms & Conditions for Purchase Order
1. EVANS BUILT DEFINITION Each Party to this Agreement acknowledges and agrees that: a) each reference in this Agreement to Evans Built or to a Purchaser is a reference to Evans Built Pty Ltd (ABN 61 120
More information9 March Geoffrey Hancy. Barrister Mezzanine Level, 28 The Esplanade, Perth
9 March 2016 TRAVELLING SECTION 54 WITH A WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ROAD MAP Geoffrey Hancy Barrister Mezzanine Level, 28 The Esplanade, Perth 6000 geoff@hancy.net www.hancy.net Introduction 1 The Insurance Contracts
More informationCooper et al. v. Farmer's Mutual Insurance Company [Indexed as: Cooper v. Farmer's Mutual Insurance Co.]
Page 1 Cooper et al. v. Farmer's Mutual Insurance Company [Indexed as: Cooper v. Farmer's Mutual Insurance Co.] 59 O.R. (3d) 417 [2002] O.J. No. 1949 Docket No. C37051 Court of Appeal for Ontario, Abella,
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and Kinser, JJ., and Compton, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and Kinser, JJ., and Compton, Senior Justice JOHN A. BERCZEK OPINION BY v. Record No. 991117 SENIOR JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON April 21, 2000 ERIE
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL 1. Mr McDowell a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Squires v President of Industrial Court Qld [2002] QSC 272 PARTIES: FILE NO: S3990 of 2002 DIVISION: PHILLIP ALAN SQUIRES (applicant/respondent) v PRESIDENT OF INDUSTRIAL
More informationDirectors' and Officers' Liability AIG Gold Complete Policy Wording
Allens Deutsche Bank Place Corner Hunter and Phillip Streets Sydney NSW 2000 Australia GPO Box 50 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia DX 105 Sydney T +61 2 9230 4000 F +61 2 9230 5333 www.allens.com.au ABN 47 702
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Barry v Blue Stream Holdings P/L & Anor [2003] QSC 466 PARTIES: FILE NO: S9189 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: PHILLIP MERVYN BARRY and CHRISTINE
More informationLedcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37
PUBLICATION Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37 Date: September 15, 2016 Co-Authors: David Mackenzie, Dominic Clarke, Zack Garcia Original Newsletter(s) this article
More informationUnfair Terms - Recent developments 10/31/2017
Unfair terms a review of recent developments Unfair terms a review of recent developments Seb Oram Overview 1. What has changed recently? 2. UCTA 1997: dealing on another s standard terms 3. Changes to
More informationDouble Insurance and the effect of Section 45 of the Insurance Contracts Act
Double Insurance and the effect of Section 45 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1. Why "Double Insure"? Double insurance is a curious phenomenon. It is a significant topic in insurance practice and notwithstanding
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: McKnight & Anor v Ice Skating Queensland (Inc) [2007] QSC 273 PARTIES: DONALD McKNIGHT and COLIN EDWARD JACKSON AS TRUSTEES OF THE ICE SKATING ASSOCIATION OF QUEENSLAND
More informationTHE TRIPARTITE RELATIONSHIP: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE INSURED CLIENT S RIGHTS
THE TRIPARTITE RELATIONSHIP: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE INSURED CLIENT S RIGHTS I. THE TRIPARTITE RELATIONSHIP A. Defined: Monica A. Sansalone msansalone@gallaghersharp.com The tripartite relationship
More informationVICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT Reference: D202/2004. Noreen Cosgriff.
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT Reference: D202/2004 APPLICANT: FIRST RESPONDENT: SECOND RESPONDENT: WHERE HELD: BEFORE: HEARING TYPE: Noreen Cosgriff
More informationCONTRACTUAL INDEMNITIES: PUBLIC & PRIVATE SECTOR IMPLICATIONS. Updated April 2005
CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITIES: PUBLIC & PRIVATE SECTOR IMPLICATIONS Updated April 2005 PAPER ORIGINALLY PRESENTED FOR PUBLIC SECTOR LAWYERS IN AUGUST 2004 2 Indemnities are part of the overall risk allocation
More informationTax Brief. 3 March Stamp Duty Tail Wags CGT Dog? The Facts
Tax Brief 3 March 2005 Stamp Duty Tail Wags CGT Dog? Whilst the High Court decision in Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Dick Smith Electronics Holdings Pty Ltd ( Dick Smith ) involves NSW stamp duty,
More informationA REINSURER S RIGHT TO INSPECT
A REINSURER S RIGHT TO INSPECT Introduction The very nature of reinsurance means that, more often than not, reinsurers are not privy to details about how the reinsured manages claims and losses. The right
More informationIBA INSURANCE COMMITTEE SUBSTANTIVE PROJECT 2016 (SUBROGATION/RECOURSE) 2016 REPORT
IBA INSURANCE COMMITTEE SUBSTANTIVE PROJECT 2016 (SUBROGATION/RECOURSE) 2016 REPORT 1 SWITZERLAND Prager Dreifuss Dr Christoph K. Graber and Isabel A. Kölliker christoph.graber@prager-dreifuss.com isabel.koelliker@prager-dreifuss.com
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: HBU Properties Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] QCA 95 HBU PROPERTIES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SHANE MUNDEY FAMILY
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY 1. Mr Day a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 13 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under The Australian
More informationThe subrogation recovery action is provided for by article 95 of the Insurance Act of 4 April 2014 (the Insurance Act ), which states the following:
BELGIUM Lydian Hugo Keulers & Anne Catteau hugo.keulers@lydian.be anne.catteau@lydian.be 1. Does your jurisdiction grant insurers rights to pursue recoveries in respect of losses suffered by the insured
More informationSample Integrated Liability Clauses
Getting the Most of Other People's Insurance: Sample Integrated Liability Clauses November 19, 2015 Webinar Lawrence G. Theall David Badurina Brian Rosenbaum CAUTION TO READER: The sample clauses in this
More informationTerms and conditions of sale of material
C1 DEFINITIONS In the Agreement, except where the context otherwise requires: Agreement means an agreement made in accordance with C3. Acceptance (of Order) means Western Power s written acceptance of
More informationWhy a Project Owner Isn t Made an Additional Insured Under a Design Professional s Errors and Omissions Policy
constructionrisk.com http://www.constructionrisk.com/2011/07/why-project-owners-aren t-made-additional-insureds-under-a-design-professional s-errorsand-omissions-policy/ Why a Project Owner Isn t Made
More informationICSC CANADIAN LAW CONFERENCE APRIL 30 MAY 1, Are You Released? Are You Indemnified? How Do Releases and Indemnities Fit Together?
ICSC CANADIAN LAW CONFERENCE APRIL 30 MAY 1, 2018 Are You Released? Are You Indemnified? How Do Releases and Indemnities Fit Together? Prepared by: Jory Grad Owens Wright LLP Toronto, Ontario The parties
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Opinion filed August 1, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00263-CV RON POUNDS, Appellant V. LIBERTY LLOYDS OF TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 215th District
More informationCommercial Entity Agreement
>> View all legal agreements Commercial Entity Agreement Last Update: Jan 23, 2016 Print Download PDF Please view download and save this policy. COMMERCIAL ENTITY AGREEMENT FOR CREDIT CARD PROCESSING SERVICES
More informationBRIAN MURRAY DAKEN Appellant. MURRAY EDWIN NIGEL WIIG Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Asher J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA211/2016 [2016] NZCA 636 BETWEEN AND BRIAN MURRAY DAKEN Appellant MURRAY EDWIN NIGEL WIIG Respondent Hearing: 20 October 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Asher, Heath
More informationSTANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SALE OF GOODS ALL MARKETS EXCEPT OIL AND GAS
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SALE OF GOODS ALL MARKETS EXCEPT OIL AND GAS 1. Scope of Application These terms and conditions of sale ( T&C ) apply to all sales by our company ( Supplier ) of goods
More informationAdmissions and the RTA Protocol. Andrew Hogan
Admissions and the RTA Protocol Andrew Hogan This week I had cause to look at the Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (2nd edition). What a curious set of provisions
More informationPROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY EXCESS INSURANCE POLICY COSTS EXCLUSIVE
PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY EXCESS INSURANCE POLICY COSTS EXCLUSIVE ProRisk Professional Indemnity Costs Exclusive Excess Insurance Policy V2.14 Page 1 of 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE IMPORTANT INFORMATION... 3
More informationTERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE OF GOODS AND SUPPLY OF SERVICES
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE OF GOODS AND SUPPLY OF SERVICES Section 1 - SALE OF GOODS 1.1. Definitions agreement is a reference to these Terms and Conditions and any order form and payment instructions
More informationJujitsu Techniques for Enforcing & Defending Contract Liability Claims
Jujitsu Techniques for Enforcing & Defending Contract Liability Claims January 19, 2017 Jeryl Bowers Sheppard Mullin Partner, Los Angeles T +310-229-3713 M +213-926-3800 jbowers@sheppardmullin.com Sheppard
More informationProfessional Experience
Professional Experience With over 30 years at the Bar, Greg has considerable experience acting for and advising clients globally, in complex cross-border maritime, commercial, building and construction,
More informationTrade Services International Payment Product Terms Version: April 2009
online@anz Trade Services Version: April 2009 1. Recommendation ANZ recommends that the Customer before using the Service: (a) reads these Product Terms and all other relevant product disclosure material
More informationInsurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer*
Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer* By: Thomas F. Lucas McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug Chicago A part of every insurer s loss evaluation
More informationALLOCATION AMONG MULTIPLE CARRIERS IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION
ALLOCATION AMONG MULTIPLE CARRIERS IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION FRED L. SHUCHART COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3850 Houston, Texas 77002 7th Annual Construction Law Symposium January
More informationStandard Trading Terms and Conditions
Standard Trading Terms and Conditions 1. Interpretation 1.1. In these Terms and Conditions: 1.1.1. Agreement means the definition in clause 2.2 below. 1.1.2. Aqua-Tech means Baronial Pty Ltd (ACN 146 402
More informationCourt rejects statutory duty of utmost good faith
Court rejects statutory duty of utmost good faith Overview The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland in Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited (No 2) 1 provides useful guidance
More informationWIN A NEW CALEDONIA GETAWAY COMPETITION WITH SAINT LOUIS & MAISON CASTEL (competition)
Terms and conditions for trade promotions (game of skill) WIN A NEW CALEDONIA GETAWAY COMPETITION WITH SAINT LOUIS & MAISON CASTEL (competition) GAME OF SKILL 1. Information on how to enter and the prize
More informationChartered surveyors in employment: Guidance on liabilities for employed members
Chartered surveyors in employment: Guidance on liabilities for employed members February 2011 This information has been prepared by RICS, for the purpose of providing information for RICS members in employment.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION May 27, 2003 9:10 a.m. v No. 236823 Oakland Circuit Court AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC., LC
More informationHIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HAYNE, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL AND GAGELER MATTHEW MAXWELL (THE AUTHORISED, NOMINATED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF VARIOUS LLOYDS UNDERWRITERS) APPELLANT AND HIGHWAY HAULIERS PTY LTD
More informationTRENTON AGRI PRODUCTS LLC INSURANCE & INDEMNIFICATION TERMS & CONDITIONS
TRENTON AGRI PRODUCTS LLC INSURANCE & INDEMNIFICATION TERMS & CONDITIONS These Insurance & Indemnification Terms & Conditions ( Terms ) are hereby incorporated in and made a part of each and every written
More informationClause 17: Care of the Works and Indemnities
Clause 17: Care of the Works and Indemnities Written by George Rosenberg 1 This Clause has been substantially reworked. The content of the former Clause 17.6 [Limitation of Liability] has been removed
More informationAIDA Conference June 2015
Application of a jurisdiction clause contained in a marine liability policy in respect of direct claims of an injured party under sec. 95 of the Danish Insurance Contracts Act From a Danish Perspective
More informationThe Insurer s Duty to Defend After Swagger
The Insurer s Duty to Defend After Swagger I. Introduction On September 9, 2005, the Supreme Court of British Columbia delivered Reasons for Judgment in Swagger Construction Ltd. v. ING Insurance Company
More informationAGGREGATION AIG [2017] UKSC
REINSURANCE ROUND-UP AUTUMN 2017 There have been a number of important legal developments in the last year, both out of and in the courts. The Courts have been determining issues of interpretation of the
More informationINSURANCE PROVISIONS AND CASUALTY LOSSES
Presented: 2017 Bernard O. Dow Leasing Institute Houston, Texas November 10, 2017 South Texas School of Law INSURANCE PROVISIONS AND CASUALTY LOSSES Aaron Johnston, Jr. Author contact information: Aaron
More informationTORONTO OPINIONS GROUP. Limitations Act, 2002 (Ontario) Proposals for Improving Contract Drafting and Appropriate Opinion Qualification Practice
This document has been prepared by members of the Toronto Opinions Group (TOROG) to provide guidance on a reasonable approach to opinion language. The suggested language may not be appropriate in all circumstances,
More informationNSW Workers Compensation Act 1987 Employer s Insurance Policy
Part 1 Preliminary 1. Definitions 2. In this policy: "Employer" means the person insured under this Policy, being the person named as the Employer in the Schedule of Employer Particulars; "Insurer" means
More informationTHIRD PARTY LIABILITY COVERAGE IN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CONTEXT: Key Concepts and Practical Strategies Rogers Partners LLP
THIRD PARTY LIABILITY COVERAGE IN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CONTEXT: Key Concepts and Practical Strategies Rogers Partners LLP 1. INTRODUCTION Automobile coverage issues in Ontario include principles extending
More informationCommercial Entity Agreement
Commercial Entity Agreement Last Update: Jan 09, 2018 Print Download PDF Please view download and save this policy. COMMERCIAL ENTITY AGREEMENT FOR CREDIT CARD PROCESSING SERVICES HSBC BANK COMMERCIAL
More informationGST Treatment of Out-of- Court Settlements: Is There a Forbearance to Sue?
GST Treatment of Out-of- Court Settlements: Is There a Forbearance to Sue? by Ivy Ling Yieng Ping It is common for parties to settle a contractual dispute out of court by way of a settlement agreement.
More informationTax Brief. 7 June GST-Free Supplies of Services to Non Residents Court Supports Commissioner s Draft Ruling. The Facts
Tax Brief 7 June 2004 GST-Free Supplies of Services to Non Residents Court Supports Commissioner s Draft Ruling Fiduciary Ltd & Ors v Morningstar Research Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWSC 381 (11 May 2004) For
More informationJewson Limited Terms and Conditions of Hire and Repair
Jewson Limited Terms and Conditions of Hire and Repair 1. INTERPRETATION 1.1. In these conditions the following words have the following meanings: Contract means a contract which incorporates these conditions
More informationCase Name: Graham v. Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect
Page 1 Case Name: Graham v. Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect Appearances: Between: Malvia Graham, applicant, and Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect, insurer [2002] O.F.S.C.I.D. No.
More informationForm 603. Corporations Act 2001 Section 671B. Notice of initial substantial holder
603 GUIDE page 1/1 13 March 2000 Form 603 Corporations Act 2001 Section 671B Notice of initial substantial holder To Company Name/Scheme nib holdings limited ACN/ARSN 125 633 856 1. Details of substantial
More informationTERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE. 1.1 the following words and expressions shall have the following meanings unless the context otherwise requires:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE 1. DEFINITIONS In these standard terms and conditions: 1.1 the following words and expressions shall have the following meanings unless the context otherwise requires: Business
More informationDECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY. 7 March 2018
A-014-2016 1(11) DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY 7 March 2018 (Biocidal products Data sharing dispute Every effort Permission to refer Chemical similarity Contractual freedom)
More informationCASE NO: 554/90 AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD VAN COLLER, AJA :
CASE NO: 554/90 JACOBUS ALENSON APPELLANT AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT VAN COLLER, AJA : CASE NO: 554/90 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: JACOBUS
More informationHIRE AGREEMENT. Between Chesterfield Australia Pty Ltd ACN and the party named below as the Hirer. Hirer Details
HIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement is dated the day of Between Chesterfield Australia Pty Ltd ACN 001 654 762 and the party named below as the Hirer. Hirer Details Legal/Trustee ABN: Item 1: Hirer s Details
More information(B) The Company has therefore agreed to indemnify the Indemnified Person on the terms and conditions hereinafter set out.
THIS DEED OF INDEMNITY is made the th day of 20 Between (1) COMPASS GROUP PLC, a public limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 04083914 whose registered office is at Compass
More informationMENTZ CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. NO CA-1474 COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS FOURTH CIRCUIT JULIE D. POCHE STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
MENTZ CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. VERSUS JULIE D. POCHE * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2011-CA-1474 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2008-06162,
More informationPROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LUSARDI CREEK PIPELINE RESTORATION PROJECT FOR THE OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 18AGRXXX R-E-C-I-T-A-L-S
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LUSARDI CREEK PIPELINE RESTORATION PROJECT FOR THE OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 18AGRXXX This Agreement is entered into by and between the Olivenhain Municipal
More informationFrom Denial to Acceptance: Advising the Insured Through a Professional Liability Claim
From Denial to Acceptance: Advising the Insured Through a Professional Liability Claim Thomasina Dumonceau Direct: 416.593.2999 tdumonceau@blaney.com Blaney McMurtry LLP - 2 Queen Street East, Suite 1500
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Dawson v Jewiss; Thompson v Jewiss [2004] QCA 374 PARTIES: STUART BEVAN DAWSON (plaintiff/respondent) v HENRY WILLIAM JEWISS also known as HARRY JEWISS (defendant/appellant)
More informationInsurance issues for commercial development
Insurance issues for commercial development Richard Dyton Partner, Projects (Simmons & Simmons) Iftikhar Ali Of Counsel, Litigation (Simmons & Simmons) 1 June 2017 What this talk will cover Key insurance
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Woods v Australian Taxation Office & Ors [2017] QCA 28 PARTIES: SONYA JOANNE WOODS (applicant) v AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE ABN 51 824 753 556 (first respondent) ROBERT
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Anthony Kalmanowicz, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1790 C.D. 2016 : Submitted: March 17, 2017 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Eastern Industries, Inc.), : Respondent
More informationGIO Workers Compensation
GIO Workers Compensation Australian Capital Territory Policy Under the Act it is compulsory for every employer to hold workers compensation insurance. You should read this policy carefully. It provides
More informationBrandis Hire Pty Ltd Terms and Conditions of Hire
Brandis Hire Pty Ltd Terms and Conditions of Hire It is agreed: 1. Definitions and interpretation 1.1 Definitions Unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the meanings respectively
More informationREINSURANCE ROUND-UP AUTUMN 2016 JURISDICTION
REINSURANCE ROUND-UP AUTUMN 2016 There have been a number of important legal developments in the last year, both out of and in the courts. It has been a very active year for legislation. The Insurance
More informationCITATION: Tree-Techol Tree Technology v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 755 COURT FILE NO.: DATE:
CITATION: Tree-Techol Tree Technology v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 755 COURT FILE NO.: 14-45810 DATE: 2017-02-01 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: TREE-TECHOL TREE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JANETTE LEDING OCHOA, ) ) No. 67693-8-I Appellant, ) ) DIVISION ONE v. ) ) PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC ) INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign ) corporation, THE PROGRESSIVE
More information