Dawson v Insurance Australia Limited - [2025] VSC 92

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT
GROUP PROCEEDINGS LIST

S ECI 2024 02663

Debra Gaye-Ann Dawson	First Plaintiff
Angela Susan Williams	Second Plaintiff
v
Insurance Australia Limited (ACN 000 016 722)	First Defendant
Insurance Manufacturers of Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 004 208 084)	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Nichols J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers, submissions dated 21 February 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Dawson v Insurance Australia Limited
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 92

---

GROUP PROCEEDINGS — Consolidation — Application to consolidate two proceedings — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) r 9.12(1) — Judicial discretion — Factors to be taken into account in determining whether it is appropriate to order consolidation — Legal and factual allegations made in each proceeding substantially the same — Causes of action relied upon substantially the same — Relief claimed substantially the same — Alleged contravening conduct substantially the same — Common questions of law and fact — Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) s 7 — Factors for consolidation considered in the context of the overarching purpose — Application granted.

GROUP PROCEEDINGS — Consolidation — Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) s 26 — Use of documents produced and discovered in legacy proceeding in consolidated proceeding — Order sought by plaintiffs that documents produced in legacy proceeding be documents in the consolidated proceeding — Documents order contested by defendants — Defendants did not identify basis for objection to documents order — Obligation not to make collateral use of documents disclosed on discovery — Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125 — No proper basis to defer the orderly management of the consolidated proceeding — No prejudice identified — Facilitation of the orderly and efficient conduct of the proceeding — Order made permitting the use of documents in the consolidated proceeding.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	K Burke SC	Slater & Gordon
J Page
For the Defendants	Nicholas De Young KC	Herbert Smith Freehills
Madeleine Salinger

HER HONOUR:

Insurance Australia Limited (IAL) and Insurance Manufacturers Australia Pty Limited (IMA) are insurers who relevantly provide home and contents insurance products. Debra Dawson and Angela Williams have commenced a group proceeding against IAL and IMA concerning insurance policies issued under the State Government Insurance Office (SGIO), State Government Insurance Commission (SGIC) and RACV brands. Andrew Inglis has commenced a separate proceeding against IAL concerning policies issued by it under the NRMA brand.

The allegations made in each proceeding are substantially the same. In each case it is alleged that in the course of offering insurance policies to existing policy holders, the defendants offered ‘loyalty discounts’, representing that the premium payable on renewed policies would be discounted based upon the number of polices held or the length of time the consumer had insured with the defendants. It is alleged that in fact, the purportedly discounted premiums were calculated by…

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 Dawson v Insurance Australia Limited 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] VSC 92
Decision Date: 11 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dawson v Insurance Australia Limited, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to consider whether to consolidate two related proceedings brought by a group of policyholders against the defendant, Insurance Australia Limited. The plaintiffs sought to consolidate the actions on the basis that the legal and factual issues were substantially the same in both proceedings, and that consolidation would be in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.

The court had to decide whether the proceedings should be consolidated under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) r 9.12(1) and Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) s 26. The plaintiffs argued that the proceedings should be consolidated because the causes of action, relief claimed, and alleged contravening conduct were substantially the same. They also contended that there were common questions of law and fact that could be addressed more efficiently through consolidation. The defendants did not oppose consolidation but raised concerns about the use of documents produced in a legacy proceeding in the consolidated proceeding.

The court found that consolidation was appropriate because the legal and factual allegations made in each proceeding were substantially the same, and the causes of action, relief claimed, and alleged contravening conduct were identical. The court considered the factors for consolidation in the context of the overarching purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) s 7, which is to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceeding. The court also considered the obligation not to make collateral use of documents disclosed on discovery, as established in Hearne v Street. However, the court found that there was no proper basis to defer the orderly management of the consolidated proceeding, and that no prejudice had been identified. Therefore, the court made an order permitting the use of documents in the consolidated proceeding.

Orders