Aon v Australian National University

Last updated
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Case history
Appealed fromACT Supreme Court of Appeal
Court membership
Judges sitting French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University(2009) 239 CLR 175 (Aon v ANU) is a decision by the High Court of Australia (High Court). After a bushfire destroyed property and equipment at the Australian National University's (ANU) Mount Stromlo campus near Canberra, the university lodged an insurance claim. After its insurers disputed the claim on various grounds, ANU commenced legal proceedings against them, later adding its insurance broker, Aon, to the proceedings, arguing it had been negligent in placing the insurance policies. After settling with the insurers, ANU was granted the right to amend their case against Aon. Aon challenged the decision to allow this amendment in the High Court.

Contents

The High Court confirmed that the right for a party in a court case would not be granted sheerly because an amendment raises an arguable issue, but only according to the principles of effectively managing legal cases to justly resolve the issues between the parties. Aon v ANU reversed the previous decision of Queensland v JL Holdings which had held the most important consideration when assessing such a request was the consideration of justice, and that any inconvenience to the other party was curable by awarding costs against the amender.

Background

The High Court had in an earlier decision of Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd decided that when one party in a legal dispute wanted to change their formal written arguments (called pleadings), the most important thing was to ensure fairness and justice between the parties involved. [1] The High Court ruled such changes should mostly be permitted provided they helped the case to reach the correct outcome, provided the other side was compensated for inconvenience through the payment of their costs. [1]

This approach mostly disregarded any concerns about how such changes could delay a case or affect the court system more generally. It meant parties could usually delay in making changes, resulting in significant delays and higher costs. Courts did not have the power to reject most requests, despite the potential for disruption or waste of court time. [2]

The decision effectively allowed participants in a legal proceeding to amend their pleadings as desired, encouraging parties to delay raising claims or issues with the intent of amending their pleadings without consequence. This caused delays courts struggled to manage, leading to inefficiency, increased court costs, a strain on court resources, and eventually, increased criticism. [2] Justice Raymond Finkelstein of the Federal Court of Australia felt JL Holdings had been applied in too many cases where paying costs was not fair and just in the circumstances. He felt the case had unfairly hamstrung courts and felt the decision should be reconsidered, with parties having been treated with excessive lenience. Critics of JL Holdings supported a return to the method adopted prior to the decision, where a judge was entitled to consider the effect of amending pleadings on court resources and other parties. This approach did not always view the paying of costs as a solution to the issues caused by a last-minute amendment. [3]

Case facts

In January 2003, bushfire destroyed property and equipment at Australian National University's (ANU) Mount Stromlo campus near Canberra. ANU was insured by three companies: Chubb, CGU, and ACE. [4] The insurance policies had been placed by the broker Aon Risk Services. ANU lodged a claim for property damage. This claim was disputed by its three insurers on various grounds, though they each agreed ANU had failed to take insurance out on a cohort of buildings referred to as the "Property Not Insured List" (PNI list). [3] ANU brought a suit against the insurers, later adding Aon to the suit alleging it had negligently failed to advise the insurers of the property on the PNI list. ANU also disputed the value of its assets, whereas the insurers argued the values were under-declared. [4]

On the first day of what was scheduled to be a four-week trial in the ACT Supreme Court, ANU had already settled with one insurer and commenced mediation with the remaining two, with which it settled two days later. ANU then sought an adjournment to add a new claim against Aon, for breach of contract and breach of duty of care. This was granted by Justice Gray on the grounds the amendments raised arguable issues. Aon appealed this decision and argued such amendments caused delay and did not abide by the principles of case management. The ACT Court of Appeal upheld the decision, and so Aon appealed to the High Court. [3]

High Court decision

The High Court majority held that parties do not have an automatic right to amend their pleadings, and amendments need to align with case management principles, including the timely and cost-effective resolution of disputes. [3] The majority found amendments causing substantial delay and prejudice to an opposing party should be refused and that courts can consider the strain and uncertainty of prolonged litigation when deciding whether to grant an amendment. The High Court found ANU's delayed amendment was unexplained, and the late introduction of substantial new claims against Aon justified refusing their amendment. [3]

Aon v ANU established that a reason must be provided to explain any late amendment of pleadings. [4] The High Court confirmed that a proposed amendment will not be permitted merely because it raises an arguable issue – and that amendments are subject to the principles of legal case management. The decision reversed Queensland v JL Holdings, alongside its finding that the principal consideration in deciding whether to grant an amendment is justice, with costs being the cure-all solution to any inconvenience suffered by another party. [5] The High Court was seen in Aon v ANU to demonstrate a stricter attitude than usual in applying case management principles. [6]

Related Research Articles

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation, including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants, to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicature Acts</span> UK laws restructuring the English-Welsh court system (1873–1899)

In the history of the courts of England and Wales, the Judicature Acts were a series of acts of Parliament, beginning in the 1870s, which aimed to fuse the hitherto split system of courts of England and Wales. The first two acts were the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, with a further series of amending acts.

Liability insurance is a part of the general insurance system of risk financing to protect the purchaser from the risks of liabilities imposed by lawsuits and similar claims and protects the insured if the purchaser is sued for claims that come within the coverage of the insurance policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liquidated damages</span> Damages agreed for a delay in a contract

Liquidated damages, also referred to as liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs), are damages whose amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured party to collect as compensation upon a specific breach. This is most applicable where the damages are intangible.

In law, a joinder is the joining of two or more legal issues together. Procedurally, a joinder allows multiple issues to be heard in one hearing or trial and occurs if the issues or parties involved overlap sufficiently to make the process more efficient or fairer. That helps courts avoid hearing the same facts multiple times or seeing the same parties return to court separately for each of their legal disputes. The term is also used in the realm of contracts to describe the joining of new parties to an existing agreement.

The principle of lis alibi pendens applies in municipal law, public international law, and private international law to address the problem of potentially contradictory judgments. If two courts were to hear the same dispute, it is possible they would reach inconsistent decisions. To avoid the problem, there are two rules.

Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County, 547 U.S. 189 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether state counties enjoyed sovereign immunity from private lawsuits authorized by federal law. The case involved an admiralty claim by an insurer against Chatham County, Georgia for its negligent operation of a drawbridge. The Court ruled unanimously that the county had no basis for claiming immunity because it was not acting as an "arm of the state."

Insurance bad faith is a tort unique to the law of the United States that an insurance company commits by violating the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which automatically exists by operation of law in every insurance contract.

Insurance law is the practice of law surrounding insurance, including insurance policies and claims. It can be broadly broken into three categories - regulation of the business of insurance; regulation of the content of insurance policies, especially with regard to consumer policies; and regulation of claim handling wise.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cumis counsel</span>

A Cumis counsel is "an attorney employed by a defendant in a lawsuit when there is a liability insurance policy supposedly covering the claim, but there is a conflict of interest between the insurance company and the insured defendant."

<i>Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was a case before the High Court of Australia determining that the HREOC could not validly exercise judicial power. The High Court maintained a firm position against attempts to confer judicial powers upon non-judicial bodies.

The terms legal case management (LCM), legal management system (LMS), matter management or legal project management refer to a subset of law practice management and cover a range of approaches and technologies used by law firms and courts to leverage knowledge and methodologies for managing the life cycle of a case or matter more effectively. Generally, the terms refer to the sophisticated information management and workflow practices that are tailored to meet the legal field's specific needs and requirements.

Legal protection insurance (LPI), also known as legal expenses insurance (LEI) or simply legal insurance, is a particular class of insurance which facilitates access to law and justice by providing legal advice and covering the legal costs of a dispute, regardless of whether the case is brought by or against the policyholder. Depending on the national rules, legal protection insurers can also represent the policyholder out-of-court or even in-court.

John Harris Byrne is a retired Australian jurist who previously served as Senior Judge Administrator of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Having been a judge of that court since 1989, he was one of the court's most experienced judges. He was also Chair of the National Judicial College of Australia, a body which provides programs and professional development resources to judicial officers in Australia. He is now a private Commercial Arbitrator.

Insurance in South Africa describes a mechanism in that country for the reduction or minimisation of loss, owing to the constant exposure of people and assets to risks. The kinds of loss which arise if such risks eventuate may be either patrimonial or non-patrimonial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of New Zealand</span> National court system

The judiciary of New Zealand is responsible for the system of courts that interprets and applies the laws of New Zealand. It has four primary functions: to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution; to deliver authoritative rulings on the meaning and application of legislation; to develop case law; and to uphold the rule of law, personal liberty and human rights. The judiciary is supported in its work by an executive department, the Ministry of Justice.

<i>Commonwealth v Verwayen</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Commonwealth v Verwayen, also known as the Voyager case, is a leading case involving estoppel in Australia. Bernard Verwayen sued the Australian government for damages caused by a collision between two ships of the Australian Navy. A representative of the Government initially indicated to Bernard Verwayen that the Government would not raise the statute of limitations as a defence to their negligence. In court however, the Government relied on this defence. While the decision of the High Court was split, a majority of judges found that the Government could not rely on this statement as a defence. Justices Toohey and Gaudron came to this conclusion on the basis that the Government had waived their right to rely on this defence. However, Justices Deane and Dawson came to this conclusion under the doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a defendant can not contradict a previous representation or promise made that has established an assumed state of legal affairs. This case is most frequently referred to in relation to its influence on the doctrine of estoppel.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) is Canada's first online tribunal, located in British Columbia (BC), Canada created under a Provincial statute. It is one of the first examples in the world of online dispute resolution (ODR) being incorporated into the public justice system.

<i>Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others</i> UK Supreme Court case

The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others [2021] UKSC 1 is a United Kingdom Supreme Court case determining whether commercial insurance policies for business interruption cover claims due to the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdowns. The case has implications on disputed business interruption claims worth at least £1.2 billion and affecting 370,000 businesses, primarily in the hospitality and entertainment sectors. On 15 January 2021, the Supreme Court found in favour of the claimants.

References

  1. 1 2 Lyons 2010, pp. 550–551.
  2. 1 2 Lyons 2010, p. 551.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Lyons 2010, p. 558.
  4. 1 2 3 Grime, Ken (2011). "Aon Risk Services Australia v Australian National University" (PDF). The Arbitrator and Mediator. 29: 76 – via Austlii.
  5. ↑ Lu, Andrew (2009). "Restricting amendments in Australian Courts: Cost-effective justice through the lens of case management: Aon v ANU" (PDF). Australian Insurance Law Bulletin.
  6. ↑ Olijnyk, Anna (2019-06-13). Justice and Efficiency in Mega-Litigation. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 91. ISBN   978-1-5099-1091-5.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.