Hall v Adventure Training Systems Pty Limited

In the case of Hall v Adventure Training Systems Pty Limited, the plaintiff sought to join the insurer as an additional defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the insurer, Adventure Training Systems Pty Limited, had provided an insurance policy to the defendant that potentially covered the plaintiff's claim. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff contended that the policy should indemnify them for losses suffered due to the defendant's negligence in providing adventure training services.

The court was required to decide whether there was an arguable case for indemnity under the insurance policy. This involved interpreting the terms of the policy, specifically whether the claim came within the exclusion for "professional advice." The court also needed to determine the meaning of "professional advice" in the context of the insurance policy and whether the plaintiff's claim fell within this exclusion.

The court found that there was an arguable case for indemnity under the policy. It held that the term "professional advice" was ambiguous and should be interpreted in favour of the insured. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim did not fall within the exclusion for "professional advice" as it did not involve advice given in a professional capacity. Consequently, the court allowed the plaintiff's application to join the insurer as an additional defendant.