Underewriters at Lloyds Evidenced by Contract No 680113200 and to the Companies referred to in Schedule A Hereto & Ors v Comino

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicants were Underwriters at Lloyds, evidenced by contract number 680113200, and other companies referred to in Schedule A, along with Agathocles Agathocleous, Constantine and Spero Pitsikas, Van Cooney, and Nicholas Peter Manettas. They sought to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal. The first respondents were represented by Mr. D.F. Jackson, OC, and Mr. P.J. Finch, while the fifth respondent was represented by Mr. G.A. Rich. No appearance was made for the second, third, and fourth respondents, as no relief was sought against them.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation of an exclusion clause within an insurance policy. Specifically, the applicants argued that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, particularly that of Mahoney JA (with whom Cripps JA agreed), incorrectly assessed the causal relationship between the insured's dishonest conduct and the ultimate event that rendered Mr. Manettas liable. The applicants contended that the Court of Appeal's approach to the phrase "brought about by" in the exclusion clause was flawed.

The applicants submitted that the Court of Appeal's interpretation of "brought about by" was too simplistic, suggesting it was not intended to refer to a "causa causans" (direct cause) but rather a "causa sine qua non" (a necessary condition). They argued that the phrase in the exclusion clause should focus on what directly caused the liability, rather than a more remote or indirect connection. The applicants sought to persuade the High Court that the Court of Appeal's analysis of this causal link was erroneous.