Reinsurance Australia Corporation Limited v HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd (in liquidation)

Case [2003] FCA 1526


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Reinsurance Australia Corporation Limited v HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd (in liquidation) [2003] FCA 1526

Federal Court Rules O 22 r 2(1)(d)

REINSURANCE AUSTRALIA CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 061 215 601) & MONEGASQUE DE REASSURANCES S.A.M. v HIH CASUALTY AND GENERAL INSURANCE (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 008 482 291), AIG EUROPE (UK) LTD AND NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, HEATH GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY CE HEALTH PLC), HEATH INSURANCE BROKING LTD FORMERLY CE HEATH (INSURANCE BROKING) LTD AND HEATH NORTH AMERICA AND SPECIAL RISKS LTD, ICE MEDIA LIMITED AND PREMIER MEDIA LIMITED & J P MORGAN CHASE BANK (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHEMICAL SECURITIES INC)
N827 of 2002

JACOBSON J
SYDNEY

19 DECEMBER 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N827 of 2002

BETWEEN:

REINSURANCE AUSTRALIA CORPORATION LIMITED ACN 061 215 601
FIRST APPLICANT

MONEGASQUE DE REASSURANCES S.A.M.
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

HIH CASUALTY AND GENERAL INSURANCE (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 008 482 291
FIRST RESPONDENT

AIG EUROPE (UK) LTD and NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
SECOND RESPONDENTS

HEATH GROUP LIMITED (formerly CE HEATH plc), HEATH INSURANCE BROKING LTD formerly C.E. HEATH (INSURANCE BROKING) LTD and HEATH NORTH AMERICA AND SPECIAL RISKS LTD
THIRD RESPONDENTS

ICE MEDIA LIMITED and PREMIER MEDIA LIMITED
FOURTH RESPONDENTS

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK (formerly known as THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, formerly known as CHEMICAL SECURITIES INC)
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

19 DECEMBER 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. These proceedings have been settled as between the applicants and the first, second, third and fifth respondents.

  2. The fourth respondents have been served with the originating process but they have not filed an appearance.  Nor have they ever appeared at any of the directions hearings or interlocutory hearings in the proceedings.

  3. The applicants now seek leave to discontinue the proceedings against the fourth respondents prior to the entry of consent orders signed by the applicants and the other respondents which provide for the proceedings and all cross-claims to be dismissed.  Although it is not strictly necessary, the other respondents have consented to the discontinuance against the fourth respondents.

  4. I have power to grant leave to discontinue the proceedings against the fourth respondents under O 22 r 2(1)(d).  It is appropriate that I exercise the power here where the other parties have agreed to settle and the fourth respondents have taken no part in the proceedings.  It is also appropriate in these circumstances that the applicants should not be required to pay the fourth respondents’ costs

  5. Accordingly, I will make orders in accordance with the short minutes of order submitted under cover of a letter dated 16 December 2003 that the applicants be granted leave to discontinue against the fourth respondents with no order as to costs between those parties.

  6. I direct that the discontinuance against the fourth respondents take effect immediately before the dismissal of the proceedings in accordance with the orders contained in the short minutes of order signed by the applicants and the other respondents which I have signed and dated with today’s date.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson. 

Associate:

Date:               19 December 2003

Date of Judgment: 19 December 2003
Details
AGLC
Reinsurance Australia Corporation Limited v HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd (in liquidation) [2003] FCA 1526
Case
[2003] FCA 1526
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Reinsurance Australia Corporation Limited v HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd (in liquidation), the applicants, Reinsurance Australia Corporation Limited and Monegasque de Reassurances S.A.M., sought leave to discontinue proceedings against the fourth respondents, Ice Media Limited and Premier Media Limited, prior to the entry of consent orders dismissing the proceedings against other respondents. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry, and the judge, Justice Jacobson, granted the leave to discontinue. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants could be granted leave to discontinue the proceedings against the fourth respondents, who had not participated in the proceedings, in accordance with Federal Court Rules O 22 r 2(1)(d). The court considered the appropriate circumstances for granting such leave, taking into account the settlement between the applicants and other respondents, as well as the non-participation of the fourth respondents.

Justice Jacobson found that it was appropriate to exercise the power to grant leave to discontinue the proceedings against the fourth respondents. The judge reasoned that the other parties had agreed to settle, and the fourth respondents had taken no part in the proceedings, making it appropriate for the applicants not to be required to pay the fourth respondents' costs. Therefore, the court granted the leave to discontinue and made orders in accordance with the short minutes of order submitted by the parties. The orders provided that the discontinuance against the fourth respondents would take effect immediately before the dismissal of the proceedings in accordance with the signed and dated orders. The judge signed and dated the orders on 19 December 2003, and the parties were granted leave to discontinue the proceedings against the fourth respondents with no order as to costs between those parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.