AIA Australia Limited, in the matter of AIA Australia Limited (No 2)

The case of AIA Australia Limited, in the matter of AIA Australia Limited (No 2) involved AIA Australia Limited and Resolution Life Australasia Limited. The dispute pertained to the application for confirmation of a scheme for the transfer of AIA Australia's superannuation and investments (S&I) life insurance business to Resolution Life Australasia. The scheme required confirmation by the Court under the Life Insurance Act 1995 (Cth). The central issue before the court was whether the scheme should be confirmed despite minor non-compliance with orders related to the publicising of the scheme. The court also needed to determine if the scheme would benefit the policy owners.

The court held that there was no material non-compliance with the orders that mandated publicising the scheme. The minor non-compliances did not adversely affect any policy owner, and the policy owners were not negatively impacted by the implementation of the scheme. The court was satisfied that sufficient notification of the scheme had been provided, allowing objections and concerns to be adequately addressed. The court relied heavily on actuarial evidence to assess whether the scheme had the potential to adversely affect policy owners. The actuarial reports from all three actuaries supported the scheme, concluding that it would be advantageous for policy owners and would not negatively impact their interests. Consequently, the court confirmed the scheme without modification, emphasising that it was for the benefit of the policy owners.

The final orders included confirming the scheme for the transfer of AIA Australia's S&I life insurance business to Resolution Life Australasia, effective from 12:01 am (AEST) on 1 July 2023. The applicants were also directed to pay the costs of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority as agreed or assessed. The orders allowed for liberty to apply, providing a mechanism for further applications if necessary. The confirmation of the scheme without modification underscores the court's determination that the scheme was in the best interest of the policy owners and that the minor procedural issues did not warrant any alterations to the scheme.