AIG Australia Limited v Bank of Queensland Limited & Anor; Catlin Australia Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Limited & Anor

This matter concerned applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The applicants, AIG Australia Limited and Catlin Australia Pty Ltd, sought to appeal against a decision concerning the interpretation of an aggregation clause in a contract of insurance. The respondent, Bank of Queensland Limited, argued that multiple claims made by its customers could be aggregated under a "related acts" clause, effectively treating them as a single claim for the purposes of the policy's deductible and indemnity limits. The core of the dispute revolved around whether a series of withdrawals from customer accounts, occurring over a nine-year period, constituted a "series of related wrongful acts" as defined by the aggregation clause.

The High Court was required to determine the correct approach to construing aggregation clauses in insurance policies, particularly those involving a "related acts" provision. Specifically, the Court needed to consider whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation of the aggregation clause by characterising the unifying factor at too high a level of abstraction. The applicants contended that the Court of Appeal's finding that all withdrawals were made with "knowledge of the fraud" was an insufficient basis for aggregation, as it obscured the factual variations in knowledge and circumstances over the nine-year period and was inconsistent with established principles for interpreting such clauses. The applications also raised broader questions about the adoption of English jurisprudence on aggregation clauses within Australian law and the adequacy of the reasonable business person test in resolving complex construction issues in insurance contracts.

The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal's reasoning, which focused on a generalised concept of "knowledge of the fraud" as the connecting link between the withdrawals, was an inappropriate level of abstraction. They submitted that this approach diverted attention from the specific acts themselves and obscured the factual differences and variations in the Bank's knowledge over time, which were crucial for determining whether the acts were truly "related" under the policy wording. The applicants advocated for an approach that prioritised the specific language chosen by the parties and focused on the actual circumstances of each withdrawal, consistent with English authorities such as *Lloyds TSB General Insurance Co Ltd v Lloyds Bank Insurance Services Ltd*. The respondent, Bank of Queensland, argued for the established English approach to aggregation clauses, which involves identifying a unifying factor and construing surrounding words to avoid undermining that factor, suggesting that the Court of Appeal's approach was consistent with this methodology.

The proceedings were applications for special leave to appeal, and the transcript records arguments presented by counsel for the parties. The ultimate orders or outcome of these applications are not detailed in the provided text, as it focuses on the submissions made in support of granting special leave.