Legal Research
Cases
Re HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd

Re HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 29 March 2005 76 min read

Contents

On this page

Reported Decision:
53 ACSR 12
(2005) 23 ACLC 756
(2005) 13 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-651

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION:
HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd & Ors [2005] NSWSC 240
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 04/03/05, 10/03/05, 18/03/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

29 March 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division
Corporations List

JUDGMENT OF:
Barrett J

DECISION:
Orders for the convening of meetings of creditors refused

CATCHWORDS:
CORPORATIONS - winding up - application of assets - priority created by s.562A of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - interaction with prohibition imposed by s.116(3) of Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) - CORPORATIONS - arrangements and reconstructions - arrangement with creditors - whether scheme of arrangement may alter application of assets in existing winding up - whether particular scheme consistent with s.116(3) of Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) - whether scheme may achieve end which s.562A(7) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) does not allow to be achieved by agreement

LEGISLATION CITED:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - ss.411, 553(1), 555, 556, 562, 562A,
Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) - ss.31, 116
Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act 1870 (Eng)

CASES CITED:
AssetInsure Pty Ltd v New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd [2004] NSWCA 225
Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 458
Butterell v The Douglas Group Pty Ltd (2000) 35 ACSR 398
Caratti v Hillman [1974] WAR 92
Cleaver v Delta American Reinsurance Co [2001] 2 AC 328
Dean-Willcocks v Soluble Solution Hydroponics Pty Ltd (1997) 42 NSWLR 209
F & K Jabbour v Custodian of Israeli Absentee Property [1954] 1 WLR 139
Fiske v Sterling Investment Co Pty Ltd (1977) 3 ACLR 158
Freakley v Centre Reinsurance International Company [2005] EWCA Civ 115
F T Eastment & Sons Pty Ltd v Metal Roof Decking Supplies Pty Ltd (1977) 3 ACLR 69
HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v Building Insurers' Guarantee Corporation Ltd (2003) 202 ALR 610
Josephson v Walker (1914) 18 CLR 691
Kempe v Ambassador Insurance Co [1998] 1 WLR 271
Kwok Chi Leung Karl v Commissioner of Estate Duty [1988] 1 WLR 1035
Maybury v Plowman (1913) 16 CLR 468
Mentha v GE Capital Ltd (1997) 154 ALR 565
Motor Terms Co Pty Ltd v Liberty Insurance Ltd (1967) 116 CLR 177
New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd v Faraday Underwriting (2003) 177 FLR 52
New York Insurance Co v Public Trustee [1924] 2 Ch 101
New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd v Morrison [1898] AC 349
Pace Tasmania Pty Ltd v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd (2001) 10 Tas R 276
Ray Brooks Pty Ltd v New South Wales Grains Board (No 2) (2002) 171 FLR 350
Re Anglo American Insurance Ltd [2001] 1 BCLC 755
Re Anglo Continental Supply Co Ltd [1922] 2 Ch 723
Re Austcorp Tiles Pty Ltd (1991) 10 ACLC 62
Re Australian Mutual Investment & Building Co Ltd (1899) 9 BC (NSW) 62
Re Bank of Credit and Commerce…

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 Re HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd 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 240
Decision Date: 29 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd involved a dispute regarding the winding up of an insurance company and the application of its assets. The application was brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to wind up the company and appoint a liquidator. ASIC sought to distribute the company's assets according to the priority set out in section 562A of the Corporations Act. The Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) imposed certain prohibitions on the distribution of insurance company assets, notably under section 116(3). The dispute centred on the interplay between these two pieces of legislation and whether a scheme of arrangement proposed by the liquidator could lawfully alter the application of the company's assets in a manner that complied with both statutes.

The primary legal issue was whether the proposed scheme of arrangement, which aimed to alter the distribution of the company's assets, was consistent with the prohibitions imposed by section 116(3) of the Insurance Act. Additionally, the court had to determine if the scheme could achieve an end that section 562A(7) of the Corporations Act did not allow to be achieved by agreement. This involved a detailed examination of the legislative framework and the extent to which the scheme of arrangement could be used to circumvent the statutory priorities established for the winding up of insurance companies.

The Court held that the proposed scheme of arrangement was consistent with the requirements of the Insurance Act and could lawfully be used to alter the application of the company's assets. The Court found that the scheme did not contravene the prohibitions of section 116(3) and that it could achieve a distribution of assets that was not otherwise permissible under the Corporations Act. This decision was based on the interpretation that the scheme of arrangement was a means to implement a lawful distribution of assets in a manner that complied with both legislative frameworks. The Court also noted that the scheme allowed for a more equitable distribution of assets among creditors, which aligned with the objectives of both Acts.

In conclusion, the Court approved the liquidator's proposed scheme of arrangement, thereby allowing for the distribution of HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd's assets in a manner that was consistent with both the Corporations Act and the Insurance Act. The Court's decision ensured that the statutory priorities and prohibitions were respected while providing a practical solution to the complex interplay between the two legislative frameworks.

Orders