Fenton v AIA Australia Ltd

The case of Fenton v AIA Australia Ltd involved a dispute between the applicant, Fenton, and the respondent, AIA Australia Ltd, regarding the interpretation and application of a disability income insurance policy. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, who was a policyholder under a disability income insurance policy with the respondent, sought a declaration that she was entitled to a total disablement benefit, as well as a partial disablement benefit, due to her inability to perform certain duties of her occupation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, solely due to sickness, was unable to perform one or more duties of her occupation that were important in producing income, thereby qualifying her for the total or partial disablement benefits under the policy. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the judge had erred in not accepting the applicant's evidence that she was solely due to sickness unable to perform the relevant duties.

In determining the appeal, the court found that the judge's findings were not glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences. The advantages enjoyed by the trial judge in assessing the credibility of the applicant's evidence were considered, as well as the fact that the case advanced on appeal differed from the case presented at trial. The court held that the applicant was not permitted to advance a new case on appeal, which could have been met by further evidence at trial. The decision in Whisprun v Dixon (2003) 77 ALJR 1598 was referenced to support this finding. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and no error was established in the original decision.