|Challenger Life Company Ltd v Estate of the late Real (FCA) - life insurance - competing claims - payment of amount owing under policy into Court discharged insurer’s obligations
|Morton v Mangan (NSWSC) - succession - lump sum family provision orders for adult children of deceased
|Ipex ITG Pty Ltd (in liq) v Victoria (VSCA) - costs - erroneous refusal to make costs order against non-party - appeal allowed
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Challenger Life Company Ltd v Estate of the late Real  FCA 1325
Federal Court of Australia
Life insurance - competing arguable claims between beneficiary nominated by policyholder and beneficiaries under Will - insurance company plaintiff sought direction under s215 Life Insurance Act 1995 (Cth) that it pay proceeds of policy into Court to be dealt with in accordance with orders of Court - plaintiff sought declaration that by doing so it had discharged its obligations under the policy - construction of policy documentation - held: Court had power to decide between competing claims as an incident of exercise of the jurisdiction of Court under s215 - upon payment into Court, insurance company discharged from any further liability.
Challenger Life Company Ltd
|Morton v Mangan  NSWSC 1731
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Succession - plaintiffs were two children of deceased - plaintiffs sought family provision order from estate pursuant to Succession Act 2006 (NSW) - first defendant was friend of deceased and executor - other executor was first defendant’s husband who predeceased deceased - second and third defendants were the two children of first defendant and husband, and niece and nephew of deceased’s second wife - second and third defendants were sole beneficiaries - Will made no reference to plaintiffs and no explanation for deceased not making provision for them - held: no dispute that plaintiffs were eligible persons under s57(1)(c) - each of the plaintiffs should receive additional provision which would provide capital sum for exigencies of life - lump sum provision orders made.
|Ipex ITG Pty Ltd (in liq) v Victoria  VSCA 315
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Neave, Santamaria & Kyrou JJA
Costs - State appealed from decision in which primary judge failed to make costs order against non-party for costs incurred by State in proceedings - State contended findings of primary judge were against weight of the evidence - State also claimed primary judge erred in refusing to make costs order because he was not satisfied non-party was ‘true plaintiff’ - State claimed that in accordance with principles of judicial comity, primary judge should have found non-party funded proceedings and it was in the interests of justice that he be liable for State’s costs - held: primary judge took too restrictive a view of the principles which determined when a non-party would be ordered to pay costs - exceptional remedy of non-party costs order justified in the circumstances - appeal allowed.
Ipex ITG Pty Ltd (in liq)