Ricciardi v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd

[2001] QCA 190

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA
MACKENZIE J
CHESTERMAN J

Appeal No 7740 of 2000

NICHOLAS RICCIARDI Appellant
(Plaintiff)

and

SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
(ACN 075 695 966) Respondent
(Defendant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 22/05/2001

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: The Court on this appeal consisted of Justices Williams, Mackenzie and Chesterman. The orders are as follows:

Leave to appeal is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

The respondent's application to strike out the appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs to be assessed on the standard basis of the application to strike out the appeal.

The respondent's application for an extension of time in which to deliver its notice of contention is refused with no order as to the costs of that application.

I publish the reasons for judgment of each member of the Court.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal was presented with an appeal brought by Nicholas Ricciardi against Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited concerning a dispute that originated from a decision of the District Court. The appellant sought to overturn the District Court's ruling that dismissed his claim for damages related to an alleged insurance policy breach. The appeal was heard by Justices Williams, Mackenzie, and Chesterman. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the District Court had erred in finding that the insurance policy was not void due to the insured's failure to disclose a prior conviction, and whether the District Court correctly dismissed the appellant's claim.

The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had correctly applied the law and made no error in its judgment. The Court held that the insurance policy contained a clause requiring the disclosure of prior convictions, and the appellant's failure to disclose a prior conviction constituted a breach of the policy terms. As a result, the insurance company was justified in denying the claim. The Court further found that the appellant's claim was correctly dismissed, as the policy was not void but rather voidable, and the insurer had the right to avoid the contract. The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The Court also denied the respondent's application to strike out the appeal and refused the extension of time for delivering the notice of contention, with no order as to costs for that application.

The Court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, the appeal itself, and the application to strike out the appeal, all to be assessed on the standard basis. The Court's final orders were that leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was to pay the respondent's costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established