Tropical Reef Shipyard Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited

In Tropical Reef Shipyard Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited, the appellant sought to recover damages for business interruption losses. The case involved an appeal against the dismissal of their claim for summary judgment and a determination that their Fast Track Statement did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The respondent, QBE Insurance, argued that the claim should be dismissed on the basis that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and was not appropriate for summary dismissal under section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The appellant argued that their Fast Track Statement sufficiently disclosed a cause of action and that the matter should not have been dismissed without considering an alternative basis for their claim.

The central legal issue was whether the Fast Track Statement disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and if the case was an appropriate one for summary dismissal. Additionally, the court had to determine how the turnover in the current period should be determined in the context of a business interruption claim, particularly whether it should be limited to invoices issued in a particular week. The court also had to consider whether the dismissal of the proceeding without consideration of an alternative basis for supporting a complex cause of action was appropriate.

The court held that the Fast Track Statement did disclose a reasonable cause of action and that the case was not appropriate for summary dismissal. The court found that the determination of turnover in the current period should consider each week separately, in line with a previous determination. The court concluded that the proceeding should not have been dismissed without considering the appellant’s alternative basis for their claim. The appeal was allowed, and the orders were set aside. The application for summary judgment was dismissed with costs, and the appellant was granted leave to amend its claim. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, including the costs of the motion for leave to appeal.