AMP Ltd v Chubb Insurance Australia Ltd - [2025] NSWSC 790

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: AMP Ltd v Chubb Insurance Australia Ltd; (s 50 summary) [2025] NSWSC 790
Hearing dates: 14 and 17 July 2025
Date of orders: 18 July 2025
Decision date: 18 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Rees J
Decision:
Dismiss motion.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – summary – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 50 – plaintiff seeks to tender summary of 395 lever-arch folders of documents – whether “evidence of the contents of … documents in question” – whether summary interprets underlying documents, involves exercise of judgement, is a submission or gives expert opinion – principles at [6]-[12] – plaintiff reduces tender to 16 lever-arch folders – now possible conveniently to examine the evidence.

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 50, 47.

Cases Cited:
Botany Bay City Council v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 101
In the matter of Great Southern Managers Australia Ltd v Gunns Plantations Ltd [2011] VSC 380
In the matter of Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd v Hobbs [2012] NSWSC 568

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties:
AMP Ltd (1st Plaintiff)
AMP Services Ltd (2nd Plaintiff)
AMP Advice Holdings Ltd (3rd Plaintiff)
Akumin Financial Planning Pty Ltd (formerly AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd (5th Plaintiff)
Hillross Financial Services Ltd (7th Plaintiff)
Charter Financial Planning Ltd (12th Plaintiff)
Chubb Insurance Australia Ltd (1st Defendant)
XL Insurance Co SE (2nd Defendant)
AIG Australia Ltd (3rd Defendant)
Berkshire Hathaway Speciality Insurance Co (4th Defendant)
Zurich Insurance Public Ltd Co (5th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 4711 (6th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 2786 (7th Defendant)
HCC International Insurance Co Plc (8th Defendant)
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co (9th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 1218 (10th Defendant)
AIG Europe SA (11th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 1861 (12th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 1274 (13th Defendant)
Markel International Insurance Co Ltd (14th Defendant)
Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd (formerly Arch Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd (15th Defendant)
Axis Specialty Europe SE (16th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 1955 (17 Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 3210 (18th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 1886 (19th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 1183 (20th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 2015 (21st Defendant)
International General Insurance Co (UK) Ltd (22nd Defendant)
Endurance Specialty Insurance Ltd (23rd Defendant)
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (24th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 4000 (25th Defendant)
CNA Insurance Co Ltd (26th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 2232 (27th Defendant)
Lloyd’s Syndicate No 2007 (28th Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Giles SC/J Burnett/S Danne/K Sharma (Plaintiffs)

A Munro SC / A Smith (1st, 2nd Defendants)
S Donaldson SC / M Lyons (10th, 12th-23rd, 25th-28th Defendants)
PM Knowles SC (3rd-8th Defendants)
R Carey (9th, 24th Defendants)

Solicitors:
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (Plaintiffs)
Colin Biggers Paisley (1st, 2nd Defendants)
HWL Ebsworth (10th, 12th-23rd, 25th-28th Defendants)
Wotton+Kearney (3rd-8th, 11th Defendants)
Lander & Rogers (9th Defendant)
Moray & Agnew (24th Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/121767

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: By motion filed on 8 July 2025, the plaintiffs (AMP) sought to present evidence of the contents of some 395 lever-arch folders…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AMP Ltd v Chubb Insurance Australia Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 790
Decision Date: 18 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AMP Limited initiated legal proceedings against Chubb Insurance Australia Limited in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary focus of the dispute was the admissibility of a proposed summary of extensive documentation, which AMP sought to present as evidence. This documentation consisted of 395 lever-arch folders, each containing numerous documents related to the case. The court was tasked with determining whether this summary complied with the requirements of section 50 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the interpretation and application of section 50 of the Evidence Act. This section stipulates that a summary of the contents of documents can be tendered if it accurately reflects the original documents and is not an interpretation, exercise of judgment, submission, or expert opinion. The court needed to assess whether AMP's proposed summary met these criteria. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the summary could be conveniently examined by the parties, as per the provisions of the Evidence Act.

The court meticulously examined the nature of AMP's proposed summary, noting that it initially sought to tender a summary of 395 lever-arch folders. This extensive volume made it impractical for the parties to conveniently examine the evidence. The court applied principles from previous cases, such as those at [6]-[12], to guide its decision. Ultimately, the court found that the original summary did not meet the statutory requirements because it involved interpretation and judgment. AMP subsequently reduced the tender to 16 lever-arch folders, which the court deemed a more manageable and convenient number for examination. Consequently, the court allowed the reduced summary to be tendered as evidence.

Orders