Kim & Anor v Cole Summary

[2002] QCA 398

COURT OF APPEAL

JERRARD JA

Appeal No 8074 of 2001

JAE-WON KIM and DONG HEE KIM Not Party to Appeal (Plaintiff)

and

CAROL COLE Not Party to appeal (First Defendant)

and

MICHAEL WILLIAM HURST Applicant (Second Defendant)

and

WESFARMERS FEDERATION INSURANCE LTD Respondent (Third Party)

BRISBANE

..DATE 01/10/2002

ORDER

MR R BAIN QC, with him MR C A WILKINS (instructed by

Mr N Radich of Broadbent Radich Simpson) for the applicant
MR J F CONNOLLY (of HBM Lawyers) for the respondent

JERRARD JA: Upon the undertaking of the applicant made today to prosecute the application for special leave and any appeal allowed, I order in accordance with the draft prepared by the parties.

‑‑‑‑‑

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal concerning a dispute between the applicants and the respondents. The primary issue was whether the applicants were entitled to coverage under a policy of insurance. The applicants, Michael William Hurst, and the respondents, Wesfarmers Federation Insurance Ltd, were involved in the legal proceedings. The applicants sought to challenge a decision of the primary judge who had ruled against their claim for coverage under the insurance policy.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants' claim for coverage was valid under the terms of the insurance policy. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the policy provided coverage for the applicants' situation and whether the applicants had fulfilled all necessary conditions to be covered. The Court also needed to consider the interpretation of certain clauses in the insurance policy and the obligations of the insurance company under those terms.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal examined the terms of the insurance policy and the applicants' obligations under it. The Court concluded that the policy did not provide coverage for the applicants' situation as it was not within the scope of the policy terms. The Court also found that the applicants had not met certain conditions necessary for coverage, further precluding their claim. The Court further explained that the insurance company had acted in accordance with the terms of the policy and had not breached any obligations. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the primary judge.

The Court made an order that the applicants would bear the costs of the appeal. The Court also noted that the applicants had undertaken to prosecute the application for special leave and any appeal allowed, which was a condition for the appeal to be heard.

Kim & Anor v Cole

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established