Practice and procedure - Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - duty of claimant to cooperate with insurer

In Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited v Brown [2004] QCA 325 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the extent of the duty of cooperation imposed on a claimant under s45 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The issue is an important one because it affects virtually all claims made under the Act.

Mandatory offers under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - with interest please!

In Windon v Edwards [2005] QDC 029 Robin QC DCJ considered the cost consequence of mandatory final offers under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Practice and Procedures - Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 ss 39 and 57

In Bermingham v Priest [2002] QSC 057 jones J considered the position of persons seeking to claim damages where the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 applies prior to its amendment by the Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Act 2000, and where proceedings are brought close to expiration of the statutory limitation period.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - obligation to disclose

In Turpin v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, S5216 of 2001), Mullins J, 17.10.2001) the plaintiff applied for a declaration that the respondent disclose pursuant to s47 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 copies of three statements referred to in a loss assessor's investigation report as "attached". The issue involved determination of whether the statements must be disclosed under s48(2) even though protected by legal professional privilege. The Court applied the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in James v Workcover Queensland.

Personal injury in motor accident in NSW - procedural requirements under Motor Accidents Insurance Act 1988 (NSW)

In Hooper v Robinson [2002] QDC 080 (District Court of Queensland, D 4841 of 2001, McGill DCJ, 19.4.2002) McGill DCJ considered the application of the decision in John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] 203 CLR 503 to notice requirements such as in s42 of NSW Motor Accident Insurance Act 1988 and concluded such provisions are now substantive.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - whether vehicle in question a vehicle "for which registration is required"

In Gideona v Nominal Defendant [2005] QCA 261, the Queensland Court of Appeal reconsidered the question of what is the material time for determining whether registration of a motor vehicle is required. The Court declined to follow the decision in Kelly v Alford [1988] 1 Qd R 404; deciding that the material time was the time when the accident occurred.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - whether obligation to co-operate may authorise order requiring commencement of proceedings by minor prior to expiration of limitation period

In Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v McPaul; Council of the City of Gold Coast v McPaul [2005] QSC 278 the applicant insurer sought an order requiring a claimant who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident some years earlier when he was five years old to commence a proceeding to determine the question of the applicant's liability to him. The applicant's interest in seeking the order was to avoid the prejudice which could follow from further delay, particularly delay until the respondent became obliged to commence proceedings to avoid a limitations bar.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - reasonable excuse for delay in giving notice under s37

The decisions in Perdis v The Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 555, Miller v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 558 and Piper v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 557 were handed down contemporaneously by the Queensland Court of Appeal on December 15 2003. They consider important issues as to the construction of key provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - compulsory conferences and offers to settle

In Lindsay v Aumaali [2004] QDC 028 the Court considered whether it could, in effect, postpone the requirement for a compulsory conference under s51A of the Moror Accident insurance Act 1994 (Qld) or the exchange of final offers under s51C of the Act until after the start of proceedings.

Party to litigation insolvent company - costs order against non-party liquidator

In Kimtran Pty Ltd v Downie [2003] QDC 043 the court allowed in part an appeal from the refusal by the Queensland Building Tribunal to order the respondent liquidators pay the appellants' costs of proceedings in the Tribunal. The decision involved an examination of authorities which have considered the circumstances in which it is in the interests of justice to make an order for costs against a non-party.

Costs order against company in liquidation unlikely to be effective indemnity

In Kimtran v Downie [2003] QCA 424, the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the decision of a District Court judge who had ordered costs against a non-party liquidator. It held that the court's decision in relation to the awarding of costs against a liquidator was not constrained by the decision of the of the Court of Appeal in Mahaffey v Belar Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 2 in the manner stated in the District Court.

A review of Deeds of Company Arrangement

Deeds of company arrangement ('DOCAs') under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act appear be something of a limited success. However, the use and outcomes of DOCAs raise legitimate questions as to whether the level of returns currently being achieved for creditors might be improved by legislative reform. The 2013 ARITA Terry Taylor Scholarship project entailed a review of a random sample of executed DOCAs effectuated between 1 August 2012 and 31 July 2013. This review was undertaken with the intention of producing a ‘snapshot’ of current trends and outcomes of the use of DOCAs in practice – ie, average (or typical) rates of dividends paid, what DOCAs customarily achieve, the profile of the companies executing DOCAs and the average duration of DOCAs. The purpose of this review was to empirically assess the use and effectiveness of DOCAs in order to inform the ongoing debate about the success or otherwise of Australia’s Part 5.3A voluntary administration regime (which recently marked its 20 year anniversary).

A sample review of Deeds of Company Arrangement under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act

An empirical review of the operation of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is timely given that Australia’s corporate rescue regime marked its 20 year anniversary in 2013. The research project culminating in this report was funded by the 2013 ARITA Terry Taylor Scholarship and entailed a review of a random sample of 72 executed DOCAs (and associated reports and returns) which were effectuated between 1 August 2012 and 31 July 2013. This sample review of DOCAs was undertaken with the intention of producing a ‘snapshot’ of current practices and trends pertaining to DOCAs – ie, average (or typical) rate of dividends paid, the outcomes or goals which DOCAs customarily achieve (eg, genuine company rescues, workouts, enhanced asset realisations or ‘quasi-liquidations’), the profile of the companies executing DOCAs and the average term/duration of DOCAs. The purpose and value of this sample review was to empirically assess the use and effectiveness of one important aspect of Part 5.3A and to further inform consideration and debate as to whether changes are warranted to Australia’s voluntary administration regime.

Insurance and trust : lessons from the Christchurch Cathedral

This article examines important insurance and trust law issues that may confront trustees charged with the governance and protection of unique properties with broad community and heritage significance. Often trustee roles are assumed by community leaders without full appreciation of the potential difficulties and consequences when unforeseen circumstances arise. Three recent New Zealand court decisions in relation to the deconstruction and repair of the Christchurch Cathedral and to the interim construction of a transitional"cardboard Cathedral" highlight how difficult - and legally exposed - the role of trustee can be. The Cathedral cases go to the heart of defining the core purpose for which a Trust is created and examine the scope of discretion in fulfilling this charge its Trustees carry. Arising in the wake of the devastating Christchurch earthquakes, the Cathedral's Trustees were called upon to consider the best directions forward for a criplled and dangerous building subject to potential demolition, the wellbeing of the Cathedral's direct community, and the broader heritage and identity factors that this 'heart' of Christchurch represented. In the context of a seemingly grossly underinsured material damage cover - and faced with broader losses across the Diocese's holdings - the Trustees found that their sense of mission failed to gel with that of a community-based heritage buildings preservation trust. The High Court had to consider how monies received under the material damage policy could be applied by the Trustee in deconstructing, reinstating or repairing the Cathedral and if monies could be partly deployed to create an interim solution in the former of a transitional cathedral - all this in the context of the site-specific purpose of the Cathedral trust. The cases emphasise further the need to assess professionally the nature and quantum of cover effected to protect against various risks. In addition, in the case of historic or unusual buildings extra care must be exercised to take account additional costs associated with reinstatement so as to substantially retain the character and intrinsic value of such properties.