Edwards v Avant Insurance Limited - [2020] TASSC 8

[2020] TASSC 8

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Edwards v Avant Insurance Limited [2020] TASSC 8

PARTIES:  EDWARDS, Stephen John
  v
  AVANT INSURANCE LIMITED

FILE NO:  2674/2018
DELIVERED ON:  14 December 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  6, 7 December 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Courts and Judges – Contempt – Particular contempts – Breach of undertaking to Court – Implied undertaking – Documents disclosed by prosecution in criminal proceedings – Scope of implied undertaking – Disclosure to accused's insurer.

Taylor v Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177; Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36, 235 CLR 125; Cadence Asset Management Pty Ltd v Concept Sports Ltd [2006] FCA 711; QPSX Ltd v Ericsson Australia Ltd (No 5) [2007] FCA 244; Dale v Veda Advantage Information Services and Solutions Ltd [2007] FCA 1603; Shearpond Pty Ltd v Atune Financial Solutions Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 1448, referred to.
Aust Dig Courts and Judges [145]

Estoppel – Estoppel by conduct – Act, omission or assumption – Representation generally – Generally – Representation by insurer – Representation as to indemnifying insured for legal costs of defending criminal charge – Unreasonable to interpret email as unqualified representation – No estoppel.

Aust Dig Estoppel [1052]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  B R McTaggart SC, C Sluiter
             Defendant:  T McEvoy QC, W Newland
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Murdoch Clarke
             Defendant:  HWL Ebsworth

Judgment Number: [2020] TASSC 8
Number of paragraphs: 51

Serial No 8/2020
File No 2674/2018

STEPHEN JOHN EDWARDS
v AVANT INSURANCE LIMITED

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

14 December 2018

This action concerns a dispute about an insurance claim by a medical practitioner. The plaintiff, Dr Stephen Edwards, has been charged with murdering his mother. It appears that she died shortly after he had given her certain medication. At the time he was the holder of a "Practitioner Indemnity Insurance Policy" issued by the defendant, Avant Insurance Limited. He made a claim under that policy, seeking to be indemnified in respect of legal fees and other expenses in relation to his defence of the murder charge on the basis that the charge arose from his provision of "Healthcare or Unpaid Healthcare" within the meaning of a clause in the policy. The insurer contends that it is not obliged to indemnify the plaintiff, at this stage, and that it is not liable to do so on any basis that was relied upon by the plaintiff at the trial of the action.
Counsel informed me that the murder trial is expected to commence with the taking of a plea in February 2019. It is expected that a jury will be empanelled in mid-March 2019. There is no evidence before me as to any particulars supplied by the Crown as to the basis upon which it is alleged that the plaintiff committed the crime of murder. It seems likely that the Crown will rely on s 157(1)(a) and (c)…

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 Edwards v Avant Insurance 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: [2020] TASSC 8
Decision Date: 14 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Edwards v Avant Insurance Limited was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved an action brought by the plaintiff, Edwards, against the defendant, Avant Insurance Limited, an insurance company. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant had breached an implied undertaking to the Court, which arose from the disclosure of certain documents by the prosecution in criminal proceedings. The crux of the matter was whether the defendant's disclosure of documents to the plaintiff's insurer constituted a breach of this implied undertaking.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's disclosure of documents to the plaintiff's insurer constituted a breach of the implied undertaking to the Court. This involved an interpretation of the scope of the implied undertaking and whether it extended to include such disclosures. The court also had to consider whether an estoppel by conduct had arisen from the defendant's representation to the insurer that they would indemnify the plaintiff for the legal costs of defending the criminal charge.

The court held that there was no breach of the implied undertaking. The implied undertaking did not extend to include the disclosure of documents to the plaintiff's insurer. Furthermore, the court found that it was unreasonable to interpret the email from the defendant as an unqualified representation to indemnify the plaintiff for the legal costs. The court concluded that no estoppel by conduct had arisen from the defendant's conduct. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Orders