Dixon, Meachelle v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd - [1998] FCA 1768

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INSURANCE – claim for enforcement of change upon insurance moneys – disclaimer of liability to indemnify insured – whether insurer entitled to disclaim liability – construction of proposal forms against insurer if ambiguous – application of principle of contra proferentem – whether trial judge correct in deciding that application for leave to commence proceedings did not conclude question whether insurers were entitled to disclaim liability – application of Anshun principle – whether, where leave is sought under s 26(3) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT) to commence an action, the question whether the insurer is entitled to disclaim liability is to be determined once and for all on the application for leave.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT), ss 25, 26, 27
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), s 6

Yorkville Nominees Pty Ltd v Lissenden (1986) 160 CLR 476, cited
Bailey v New South Wales Medical Defence Union Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 399, followed
Andjelkovic v AFG Insurances Ltd (1980) 31 ACTR 17, considered
AFG Insurances Ltd v Andjelkovic (1981) 54 FLR 398, considered
Lissenden v Yorkville Nominees Pty Ltd (1984) 3 NSWLR 138, cited
FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v McSweeney (1997) 73 FCR 379, cited
National Mutual Property Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Citibank Savings Ltd (Lindgren J, 6 June 1996, unreported), cited
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589, considered

MEACHELLE DIXON v ROYAL INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED AND CIGNA INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED AND LEADENHALL INSURANCE LIMITED

AG 17 of 1997

MILES, LEE AND LEHANE JJ
CANBERRA
24 DECEMBER 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
AG 17of 1997

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

MEACHELLE DIXON
APPELLANT

AND:

ROYAL INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

CIGNA INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

LEADENHALL INSURANCE LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

MILES, LEE AND LEHANE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

24 DECEMBER 1998

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
AG 17 of 1997

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

MEACHELLE DIXON
APPELLANT

AND:

ROYAL INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

CIGNA INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

LEADENHALL INSURANCE LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

MILES, LEE AND LEHANE JJ

DATE:

24 DECEMBER 1998

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

Facts

On 1 December 1984 the appellant was a passenger in an aircraft which crashed and was destroyed near Goulburn, New South Wales. The pilot of the aircraft was Edward Joseph Priest. The appellant was injured in the accident; she proceeded against Mr Priest to recover damages for negligence. She obtained judgment ex parte against Mr Priest; damages were assessed at $148,696.32. A judgment entered for that sum, together with costs, remains…

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.

Continue reading Dixon, Meachelle v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd

Details

AGLC: Dixon, Meachelle v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd [1998] FCA 1768
Case: [1998] FCA 1768
Decision Date: 24 DECEMBER 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Meachelle Dixon, the appellant, and Royal Insurance Australia Ltd, the respondent. The dispute revolves around an insurance claim made by Dixon in the aftermath of a car accident. The claim was denied by Royal Insurance, leading Dixon to challenge the decision in the court. The case was heard and determined in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Royal Insurance was justified in denying Dixon's claim under the insurance policy. The court needed to examine the terms of the policy, the circumstances of the accident, and whether the denial of the claim complied with the obligations under the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth). A secondary issue was whether there was any procedural unfairness in the handling of the claim by Royal Insurance.

The court, after carefully reviewing the evidence and the applicable law, found that Royal Insurance had acted within its rights in denying the claim. The court noted that the policy's terms and conditions were clear, and the circumstances of the accident did not meet the criteria for coverage. Furthermore, the court determined that there was no procedural unfairness in the way the claim was handled. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and Dixon was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note:

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.

BETWEEN:	MEACHELLE DIXON APPELLANT
AND:	ROYAL INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT CIGNA INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT LEADENHALL INSURANCE LIMITED THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGES:		MILES, LEE AND LEHANE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:		24 DECEMBER 1998
WHERE MADE:		CANBERRA

JUDGES:	MILES, LEE AND LEHANE JJ
DATE:	24 DECEMBER 1998
PLACE:	CANBERRA