Attorney-General in respect of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry v QBE Insurance (International) Limited

[2006] NZSC 6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 54/2005 [2006] NZSC 6

BETWEENHER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY- GENERAL IN RESPECT OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

Appellant

ANDQBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing:         27 February 2006

Court:            Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ Counsel:    H S Hancock for Appellant

M G Ring QC for Respondent

Judgment:      10 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A.       The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B.       The  appellant  is  to  pay  the  respondent  costs  in  the  sum  of

$2,500.00  plus  disbursements,  to  be  fixed  if  necessary  by  the
Registrar.

REASONS

[1] The  Attorney-General,  acting  on  behalf  of  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and Forestry, seeks leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal holding that the  Ministry  had  no  insurance  cover  in  respect  of  a  claim  made  against  it  for financial compensation.

[2] A series of policies had been issued by or taken over by the respondent (QBE)

but the Court of Appeal held that none of them provided cover for this particular

HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY v QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED SC 54/2005 [10 March 2006]

claim.   The earlier policies did not contain condition 5 providing the necessary run-off cover; and the later policies, while containing condition 5, also contained, as condition 6, a provision which had the effect of excluding cover for this particular claim.

[3] The case turns very much on its own particular facts.   We cannot discern any question of general or public importance that would arise on the proposed appeal. Nor is there any question of general commercial significance.

[4] A new argument was raised for the first time in this Court.  It too, however, is particular to the facts of this case and raises no point of general significance.  In any event we consider that, on receipt of Wild J’s judgment, the Ministry undoubtedly had knowledge of circumstances that could well give rise to a claim for damages or compensation against it.

[5] For these reasons we are not persuaded that it is necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to hear the proposed appeal.  We must therefore decline leave in terms of s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Appellant

McElroys, Auckland for Respondent