Quach v MLC Limited [2022] FCAFC 202

Federal Court of Australia

Quach v MLC Limited [2022] FCAFC 202 Appeal from: Quach v MLC Limited (No 6) [2021] FCA 271 Application for leave to appeal from: Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited (No 4) [2020] FCA 532 Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited (No 5) [2020] FCA 1134 Quach v MLC Limited (No 6) [2021] FCA 271

File numbers: ACD 20 of 2020 ACD 38 of 2020 ACD 2 of 2021 ACD 14 of 2021 ACD 19 of 2021

Judgment of: COLLIER, PERRY AND THOMAS JJ

Date of judgment: 21 December 2022

Catchwords: INSURANCE – appeal from decision of a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia – where appellant submits the respondent had breached s 13 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) – where appellant made a claim for total and permanent disability caused by injury or sickness and claims he is unable to practise in his profession – where appellant had not provided insurer with any medical evidence supporting the claim and had not complied with policy terms - where appellant submits he was not afforded a fair hearing at first instance – where the appellant submits apprehended bias on behalf of the primary Judge – where appellant submits evidence of the respondent was inadmissible before the primary Judge – where appellant submits that the respondent could not establish 'jurisdictional fact' in the Court below - appeal dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions of a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia – applicable principles - whether decision of primary Judge is affected by sufficient doubt as to necessitate its reconsideration – whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused supposing the decision to be wrong - applications dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to adduce evidence not before the primary Judge – rule 36.57 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – section 27 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – applicable principles - whether the evidence had been adduced before the primary Judge would have very probably resulted in a different outcome – whether the appellant was able to demonstrate that he was unaware of the evidence and could not have been with reasonable diligence made aware of the evidence – applications refused PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of costs order – applicable principles – application dismissed