Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: AIG Australia Ltd v Hanna [2024] NSWCA 91 Hearing dates: 19 March 2024 Date of orders: 24 April 2024 Decision date: 24 April 2024 Before: Payne JA at [1];
Mitchelmore JA at [2];
Griffiths AJA at [82]Decision: (1) The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: INSURANCE — public liability insurance — where insured was builder responsible for construction site — where formworker slipped and fell from scaffolding — where insurer repudiated the policy because of misrepresentations by insured — whether the policy responded to liability assumed by a consent judgment — whether insured needed to prove that he was liable to the formworker — whether the settlement amount was reasonable
APPEALS — amendment of notice of appeal — whether leave should be granted to run a new ground of appeal — where argument not put below — where argument may have been met by further evidence at trial
Legislation Cited: Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)
Cases Cited: CGU Insurance Ltd v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd (2007) 235 CLR 1; [2007] HCA 36
Distillers Co Bio-Chemicals (Aust) Pty Ltd v Ajax Insurance Co Ltd (1974) 130 CLR 1; [1974] HCA 3
James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd v Seltsam Pty Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 53; [1998] HCA 78
Post Office v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1967] 2 QB 363
Superannuation & Corporate Services Pty Ltd v Turner [2020] NSWCA 246
Vero Insurance Ltd v Baycorp Advantage Ltd [2004] NSWCA 390; 23 ACLC 199
Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance [2018] NSWCA 100; 359 ALR 314
Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance [2017] NSWSC 259
Category: Principal judgment Parties: AIG Australia Ltd (Appellant)
George Hanna (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Sexton SC / J Sleight (Appellant)
CP O’Neill (Respondent)
McMahons Lawyers (Appellant)
Sanford Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/00278712 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Date of Decision:
- 31 August 2023
- Before:
- Gibb DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2021/233407
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The respondent, George Hanna, was the named insured in a policy of insurance with the appellant, AIG Insurance Ltd (AIG) (the Policy). The Policy related to a construction project (the Project). Pursuant to cl 5.00 of the Policy, AIG was required to indemnify Mr Hanna “for all sums that you become legally liable to pay as compensation”, subject to conditions not relevant to the appeal. Clause 10.01 provided that, unless Mr Hanna obtained AIG’s prior written consent, he was not to admit liability or settle any third-party claim.
In October 2018, whilst the Policy was in force, Mr Hasan, a formworker on the Project, was injured when he slipped and fell from scaffolding. In August 2020, Mr Hanna made a claim for indemnity under the Policy. In a telephone call with AIG’s solicitor in…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read AIG Insurance Ltd v Hanna and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWCA 91
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether the insurance policy responded to liability assumed by the insured via a consent judgment, whether the insured was required to prove actual liability to the injured formworker (rather than just the reasonableness of the settlement), and whether the settlement amount was reasonable in the circumstances. A further issue arose concerning an application to amend the notice of appeal to introduce a new ground, which had not been argued in the court below and might have been met by further evidence at trial.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the appeal. It held that the policy did respond to liability assumed by the insured through a consent judgment, provided that the liability was one that the policy was intended to cover. The court affirmed that the insured bore the onus of proving that he was liable to the formworker and that the settlement amount was reasonable. The application to amend the notice of appeal was refused, as the new ground was not one that could be readily considered on appeal without the potential for further evidence and argument.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.