Daily Insurance: Monday, 18 May 2015 View in browser

A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.

Daily Insurance

Listen to our daily executive summary – 120 seconds
Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
AAI Limited, application under the Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (FCA) - insurance - transfer of insurance business - dispensation from compliance with s17C(2)(c) Insurance Act 1973 (NSW)
Skilled Group Limited v Anning (TASSC) - workers compensation - reference to Tribunal - no onus on worker to provide initial entitlement to compensation - appeal dismissed
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
AAI Limited, application under the Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) [2015] FCA 452
Federal Court of Australia
Yates J
Insurance - AAI sought order under s17F(1) Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) that scheme under Div 3A of Pt III be confirmed to give effect to transfer of insurance business of MTA Insurance Limited (MTAI) to AAI (scheme) - AAI applied under s17C(5) for dispensation with need for compliance with s17C(2) which required an approved summary of scheme to be given to every affected policyholder - AAI sought dispensation be granted provided certain other steps by way of notification were undertaken - held: Court satisfied that because of nature of scheme and circumstances of its preparation it was not necessary that approved summary be given to every affected policyholder as contemplated by s17C(2) - dispensation granted substantially on proposed terms.
Skilled Group Limited v Anning [2015] TASSC 18
Supreme Court of Tasmania
Estcourt J
Workers compensation - appeal concerning question whether it was employer or worker who bore onus of proof on a reference to Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal made by employer pursuant to s81A(5) Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas) - employer contended that a s81A(5) reference ‘that puts initial entitlement in issue’ required worker to prove initial entitlement to compensation within meaning of s49(2), or alternatively placed onus of proof on worker because relevant common law principle was that ‘he or she who asserts must prove’ - held: Court did not accept that worker who was subject of reference to tribunal by employer pursuant to s 81A(5) had to provide initial entitlement to payment of compensation within the meaning of s49(2) with consequence that s49(2) operated to place onus of proof in reference on worker - Court did not accept validity of propositions underpinning alternative submission concerning common law position - employer bore onus of proof - appeal dismissed.