QBE Insurance v SLE Worldwide - [2005] NSWSC 776

Reported Decision:
(2005) 13 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-654

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION:
QBE Insurance v SLE Worldwide [2005] NSWSC 776

HEARING DATE(S): 29/07/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

29 July 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
White J

DECISION:
1. Judgment for the defendant; 2. The plaintiff pay the defendant's costs; 3. Exhibits may be returned after 28 days; 4. Liberty to apply on 7 days' notice for order for indemnity costs.

CATCHWORDS:
INSURANCE - Contribution - Whether defendant's policy covered claim paid by plaintiff - Whether insured's liability arose from and was in relation to activities of the NRL - claim dismissed.

CASES CITED:
Dickinson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1987) 163 CLR 500
Government Insurance Office (NSW) v RJ Green & Lloyd Pty Limited (1966) 114 CLR 437
Australian Paper Plantations Pty Ltd v Venturoni [2000] VSCA 71
State of New South Wales v Tempo Services Ltd [2004] NSWCA 4
Kelly & Ball, Principles of Insurance Law

PARTIES:
QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd
v
SLE Worldwide Australia Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 3979/03

COUNSEL:
Plaintiff: M McCulloch SC
Defendant: R Cavanagh

SOLICITORS:
Plaintiff: Ebsworth & Ebsworth
Defendant: Moray & Agnew

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

WHITE J

Friday, 29 July 2005

3979/03 QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED v SLE WORLDWIDE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is a claim for contribution between insurers arising from what the plaintiff claims is double or dual insurance.

2 On 30 September 2001, a Ms Claire Henderson was injured when she slipped on some steps at Stadium Australia whilst attending a rugby league grand final organised and promoted by National Rugby League Limited (“NRL”). She sued the operator of the stadium, Stadium Australia Management Pty Ltd ("SAM") and its agent, Ogden International Facilities Corporation (Sydney) Pty Limited ("Ogden").

3 She alleged, and it was admitted, that SAM had the care and control of Stadium Australia, and that Ogden managed the premises by agreement with SAM.

4 She alleged that her injuries were caused by the negligence of SAM and Ogden, or their servants or agents. The particulars of the alleged negligence were:

(a) Failing to take any or any adequate precautions for the safety of the Plaintiff.

(b) Exposing the Plaintiff to risk of injury that could have been avoided by reasonable care on its part.

(c) Providing unsafe stairs for use by the public.

(d) Painting the steps with a yellow paint which was slippery and hazardous.

(e) Failing to warn patrons including the Plaintiff of the risk of injury by way of signage or verbal warning.

(f) Failing to provide a hand rail or other adequate means of reducing the risk of injury or falling.

(g) Providing stairs too steep for their purpose.

(h) Allowing patrons to carry and consume liquid refreshments on and near the stairs, thereby exposing members of the public including the Plaintiff to risk of injury from slipping on such stairs, due in part or whole to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read QBE Insurance v SLE Worldwide and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NSWSC 776
Decision Date: 29 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of QBE Insurance v SLE Worldwide, the dispute arose from a claim made by QBE Insurance against SLE Worldwide concerning a contribution claim related to payments made under a policy. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether SLE Worldwide's policy covered the claim paid by QBE Insurance and whether the insured's liability was connected to activities of the National Rugby League (NRL). The central issue for the court was to examine the terms of SLE Worldwide's insurance policy and assess whether it provided coverage for the claim in question, as well as to determine if the insured's liability stemmed from activities associated with the NRL.

The court examined the policy wording closely to ascertain whether it covered the specific claim paid by QBE Insurance. The policy's scope and exclusions were scrutinized to determine if the activities related to the NRL were included within the policy's coverage. Additionally, the court had to establish whether the insured's liability, as claimed by QBE Insurance, arose from or was in relation to the activities of the NRL. The court's analysis involved interpreting the policy terms and assessing whether the activities of the insured fell within the policy's coverage parameters, particularly in relation to the NRL activities.

Upon thorough analysis, the court determined that the policy did not cover the claim paid by QBE Insurance. The court found that the insured's liability did not arise from or relate to activities of the NRL, as required by the policy terms. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim. The decision hinged on the precise interpretation of the policy's coverage and exclusions, and the court concluded that the activities in question were not covered by SLE Worldwide's policy. As a result, QBE Insurance's claim for contribution was rejected.

The final orders of the court confirmed that QBE Insurance's claim for contribution was dismissed, and no contribution was payable by SLE Worldwide to QBE Insurance regarding the claim in question. The court's decision was based on the finding that the insured's liability did not arise from or relate to the activities of the NRL, as stipulated by the policy terms.

Orders