Wilshire v Guardian Assurance Company Limited

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellants, Wilshire and Feely, had brought an action against the respondent, Guardian Assurance Company Limited, to recover under a fire insurance policy for the destruction of a building and its contents. The dispute centred on whether a change in the building's occupation from a bulk store to a wool-scouring establishment had increased the risk of fire, thereby voiding the policy under a specific condition.

The legal issues before the court were whether the jury's finding that the change in the nature of the occupation did not increase the risk of fire was a reasonable conclusion based on the undisputed facts. The court was required to determine if it was appropriate for the Court of Appeal to set aside the jury's verdict and enter judgment for the defendant insurance company, or if a new trial was warranted.

The majority of the High Court, applying Order XXXVIII, rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules 1909 (W.A.), held that if a jury, properly understanding the case, could not reasonably have found a verdict for the plaintiff based on undisputed facts, it was the duty of the Court of Appeal to enter judgment for the defendant. The court reasoned that the change from a bulk store to a wool-scouring establishment, which involved the use of open fires and flammable materials, unequivocally increased the risk of fire. This conclusion was supported by evidence of significantly higher insurance premiums for wool-scouring establishments compared to bulk stores. Therefore, the Full Court was correct in reversing the trial judge's decision and entering judgment for the defendant.

The appeal was dismissed, and judgment was entered for the defendant company.