Dixon, Meachelle v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1768

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA INSURANCE – claim for enforcement of change upon insurance moneys – disclaimer of liability to indemnify insured – whether insurer entitled to disclaim liability – construction of proposal forms against insurer if ambiguous – application of principle of contra proferentem – whether trial judge correct in deciding that application for leave to commence proceedings did not conclude question whether insurers were entitled to disclaim liability – application of Anshun principle – whether, where leave is sought under s 26(3) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT) to commence an action, the question whether the insurer is entitled to disclaim liability is to be determined once and for all on the application for leave. Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT), ss 25, 26, 27 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), s 6 Yorkville Nominees Pty Ltd v Lissenden (1986) 160 CLR 476, cited Bailey v New South Wales Medical Defence Union Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 399, followed Andjelkovic v AFG Insurances Ltd (1980) 31 ACTR 17, considered AFG Insurances Ltd v Andjelkovic (1981) 54 FLR 398, considered Lissenden v Yorkville Nominees Pty Ltd (1984) 3 NSWLR 138, cited FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v McSweeney (1997) 73 FCR 379, cited National Mutual Property Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Citibank Savings Ltd (Lindgren J, 6 June 1996, unreported), cited Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589, considered MEACHELLE DIXON v ROYAL INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED AND CIGNA INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED AND LEADENHALL INSURANCE LIMITED AG 17 of 1997 MILES, LEE AND LEHANE JJ CANBERRA 24 DECEMBER 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AG 17 of 1997

DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT