Hurlock v The Council of the Shire of Johnstone; Maund v The Council of the Shire of Johnstone; Nicolas v The Council of the Shire of Johnstone; Frazer v The Council of the Shire of Johnstone

The Council of the Shire of Johnstone was sued by four plaintiffs for negligently subdividing and selling flood-prone land, resulting in significant financial losses for the plaintiffs. The council sought indemnity under its insurance policies, and this led to a complex legal dispute involving the interpretation of the insurance policies and the council's liability. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the insurance policies, whether the council was entitled to indemnity for its actions, and if the insurance company had validly indemnified the council.

The court examined whether the complaints made by the plaintiffs about flooding amounted to claims under the insurance policy. It held that these complaints did not constitute claims under the policy because they did not meet the criteria for such claims. The court also considered whether the insurance company had consented to or acquiesced in the settlement of the claims by the council. It concluded that there was no evidence of such consent or acquiescence, as the insurance company had not taken over the conduct of the actions or demurred to them and had later admitted that the settlement was reasonable.

The court found that the council was entitled to indemnity from the insurance company, as the policy covered the council's liability for the subdivision of flood-prone land. The insurance company was held liable for the council's losses, as the policy provided cover for the diminution of land value without physical damage to the property. The court dismissed the appeals and allowed the cross-appeals, ordering the insurance company to pay the council the amounts claimed, plus interest and costs.