Rothschild and Sons v St Paul International Insurance Company

The case of Rothschild and Sons v St Paul International Insurance Company involved the plaintiff, Rothschild and Sons, seeking indemnity from the defendant, St Paul International Insurance Company, under an employment practices liability policy. The dispute arose when a former employee of Rothschild and Sons brought proceedings against the company under section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, alleging unfair dismissal. The plaintiff sought a declaration that it was entitled to indemnity from the defendant for the costs associated with the s 106 proceedings, along with an order for the advancement of its defence costs. The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant was correct in denying indemnity under the policy, whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of its entitlement to indemnity, and whether the employee's summons in the Industrial Relations Commission constituted a "Claim" for a "Wrongful Employment Practice" as defined in the policy. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff was entitled to an order for the advancement of its defence costs and whether any liability for compensation for unfairness under section 106 was "assumed under" the employment contract.

The court began by examining the definition of "Claim" and "Wrongful Employment Practice" within the policy. It found that the summons in the Industrial Relations Commission did not meet the criteria for a "Claim" under the policy, as it did not involve a "Claim" by a "third party" for damages or other relief. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity for the s 106 proceedings. The court further concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaration as to its entitlement to indemnity, as the policy did not cover the specific circumstances of the case. Regarding the advancement of defence costs, the court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to such an order because the policy did not provide for the advancement of costs in the context of the proceedings in question. Lastly, the court determined that any liability for compensation for unfairness under section 106 was not "assumed under" the employment contract, and thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity for those costs.

The court's final orders were that the defendant's denial of indemnity under the policy was correct, the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaration of its entitlement to indemnity, and the plaintiff was not entitled to an order for the advancement of its defence costs. The court did not make any orders regarding the liability for compensation for unfairness under section 106, as it found that such liability was not covered by the policy.