FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Nulife Insurance Ltd and Norwich Union Life Australia Ltd [2005] FCA 1459
Life Insurance Act 1995 (Cth), s 191, 193
NULIFE INSURANCE LTD AND NORWICH UNION LIFE AUSTRALIA LTD
NSD 1515 OF 2005HELY J
15 SEPTEMBER 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1515 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
NULIFE INSURANCE LIMITED AND NORWICH UNION LIFE AUSTRALIA LIMITED
APPLICANTS
JUDGE:
HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 SEPTEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to subsection 191(5) of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (Cth) (‘the Act’), the need for compliance by the applicants with subsection 191(2)(c) of the Act, by giving to the owners of policies that are referrable to the No. 1 Statutory Fund of Norwich Union Life Australia Limited (‘the NULAL Fund’) an approved summary of the scheme for the transfer and amalgamation of the life insurance business of NULIFE Insurance Limited with the life insurance business of the NULAL Fund, be dispensed with.
2. The applicants pay the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's costs of today.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1515 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
NULIFE INSURANCE LIMITED AND NORWICH UNION LIFE AUSTRALIA LIMITED
APPLICANTS
JUDGE:
HELY J
DATE:
15 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is the first return date of an application under s 193 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (‘the Act’) for an order confirming a scheme for the transfer and amalgamation of the life insurance business of NULIFE Insurance Limited with the life insurance business of the No 1 Statutory Fund of Norwich Union Life Australia Limited (‘NULAL’) and other consequential orders.
The applicants apply for an order pursuant to subs 191(5) of the Act that the need for compliance by the applicants with subs 191(2)(c) of the Act by giving the owners of policies that are referable to the No 1 Statutory Fund of NULAL an approved summary of the scheme be dispensed with.
Written submissions have been prepared by Mr Hollo, counsel for the applicants, which I have placed with the papers. Those submissions carefully detail the evidence filed in support of the application, the relevant authorities and the reasons why he submits the orders sought should be made. Shortly stated, the issue is whether $150,000 should be spent in forwarding an approved summary of the scheme to the receiving policy holders, when the evidence establishes that they will not be adversely affected by a transfer of the policies from one company in the Aviva Group to another, and when the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has indicated that it has no objection to the grant of the dispensation sought.
I accept Mr Hollo’s submission that this is a proper case in which to make the orders sought for the reasons given in pars 29-41 of his submissions.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely. Associate:
Dated: 13 October 2005
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Hollo Solicitor for the Applicant: Minter Ellison Solicitor for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 15 September 2005 Date of Judgment: 15 September 2005
- AGLC
- Nulife Insurance Ltd and Norwich Union Life Australia Ltd [2005] FCA 1459
- Case
- [2005] FCA 1459
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants were required to comply with subsection 191(2)(c) of the Act, which mandates the provision of an approved summary to policy owners of the NULAL Fund. The court had to determine whether the scheme's minimal impact on policy owners justified a departure from the statutory requirement. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the applicants' proposed alternative measures for informing policy owners were sufficient to satisfy the statutory objectives.
The court found that the scheme's minimal impact on policy owners, coupled with the applicants' alternative measures for informing policy owners, justified dispensing with the requirement to provide an approved summary. The court held that the objectives of the statutory provisions could be achieved without mandating the provision of such a summary in this instance. The court also accepted that the applicants' proposed alternative measures, which included providing a letter to policy owners outlining the scheme's details and the minimal impact on their policies, were sufficient to inform policy owners and protect their interests. As a result, the court granted the applicants' application and dispensed with the need for compliance with subsection 191(2)(c) of the Act. The court also ordered that the applicants pay the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to subsection 191(5) of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (Cth) (‘the Act’), the need for compliance by the applicants with subsection 191(2)(c) of the Act, by giving to the owners of policies that are referrable to the No. 1 Statutory Fund of Norwich Union Life Australia Limited (‘the NULAL Fund’) an approved summary of the scheme for the transfer and amalgamation of the life insurance business of NULIFE Insurance Limited with the life insurance business of the NULAL Fund, be dispensed with.
2. The applicants pay the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's costs of today.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: HELY J
Full text does not contain this section.