Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited v Scarf

Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited appealed to the Court of Appeal of Queensland against a decision of the trial judge who found in favour of the respondent, Mr. Scarf. The dispute concerned an insurance claim made by Mr. Scarf following a motor vehicle accident. Suncorp sought to rely on a policy exclusion that denied indemnity if, at the time of the event, the vehicle was being driven by a person whose faculties were impaired or who was under the influence of alcohol.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Suncorp had established its entitlement to refuse indemnity based on the policy exclusion. This involved considering whether the trial judge's findings, particularly in light of competing expert evidence regarding the respondent's impairment, were open to appellate intervention. A further issue was whether Mr. Scarf had made a fraudulent misrepresentation under section 28(2) of the *Insurance Contracts Act 1984* (Cth), and consequently, whether Suncorp was obliged to pay interest on the claim in accordance with section 57(2) of the same Act.

The Court of Appeal held that appellate intervention was not warranted. It recognised the difficulty in overturning a trial judge's conclusions, especially when those conclusions were based on the credit of witnesses and the assessment of competing expert evidence. The court found no inconsistency between the trial judge's findings and incontrovertibly established facts that would justify disturbing the original decision. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.