Pacemont P/L as Trustee for Khoury Family Trust & Ors v FAI General Ins Co Ltd
Case
•
[1998] QSC 212
•7 October 1998
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Pacemont P/L as Trustee for Khoury Family Trust v FAI General Ins Co Ltd [1998] QSC 212
[1998] QSC 212
7 October 1998
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Queensland dealt with an application by Pacemont P/L as Trustee for Khoury Family Trust and others against FAI General Insurance Company Limited. The plaintiffs sought to strike out the defendant's defence for failure to provide further and better particulars of the defence as previously ordered. The plaintiffs alleged loss under an Industrial Special Risks policy of insurance with the defendant, which covered loss by fire and consequential losses. The plaintiffs claimed that their building and property were destroyed by fire on 12 September 1997. The defendant denied liability, pleaded fraud, and avoided the policy of insurance. The defence alleged that the fire was caused by the wilful act of Monty Khoury, the plaintiffs' director, or a person or persons unknown procured by him.
The court was required to decide whether the defence provided adequate particulars as ordered. The plaintiffs argued that the particulars provided were insufficient and did not comply with the order of Moynihan SJA. They contended that the defendant should be given leave to re-plead or, alternatively, that certain parts of the defence should be struck out. The defendant argued that they had not been given sufficient time to provide the particulars and that they had provided the particulars on 3 September 1998.
The court considered the decisions in Silk v Zurich Australia Insurance Ltd and McCormick v Colonial Mutual General Insurance Co Ltd, which emphasised the importance of providing sufficient particulars to allow the plaintiff to prepare their case. The court held that the particulars provided by the defendant were insufficient and did not comply with the order of Moynihan SJA. The court ordered the defendant to provide further and better particulars of the defence and heard argument on the time within which these should be provided. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed.
The court was required to decide whether the defence provided adequate particulars as ordered. The plaintiffs argued that the particulars provided were insufficient and did not comply with the order of Moynihan SJA. They contended that the defendant should be given leave to re-plead or, alternatively, that certain parts of the defence should be struck out. The defendant argued that they had not been given sufficient time to provide the particulars and that they had provided the particulars on 3 September 1998.
The court considered the decisions in Silk v Zurich Australia Insurance Ltd and McCormick v Colonial Mutual General Insurance Co Ltd, which emphasised the importance of providing sufficient particulars to allow the plaintiff to prepare their case. The court held that the particulars provided by the defendant were insufficient and did not comply with the order of Moynihan SJA. The court ordered the defendant to provide further and better particulars of the defence and heard argument on the time within which these should be provided. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Insurance Law
Legal Concepts
-
Insurance Contract
-
Fraud
-
Particulars in Pleadings
-
Admissibility of Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Bailey v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
[1977] HCA 11
Bailey v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
[1977] HCA 11