Council of the City of Wollongong v Vero [2009] NSWSC 771

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Council of the City of Wollongong v Vero [2009] NSWSC 771

HEARING DATE(S) : 27 July 2009 JURISDICTION : Equity Division Technology and Construction List

JUDGMENT OF : McDougall J at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 27 July 2009

DECISION : See paragraph [21] of the judgment.

CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE - separate determination of questions - whether to order hearing of an additional question after judgment delivered on questions earlier stated by consent - inconsistency with list statement and submissions - question hypothetical.

LEGISLATION CITED : Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

CATEGORY : Procedural and other rulings

PARTIES : Council of the City of Wollongong (Plaintiff) Vero Insurance Limited (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 55095/07

COUNSEL : N A Cotman SC / R I Goodridge (Plaintiff) S R Donaldson SC / G A Donnellan (Defendant)

SOLICITORS : Fisher Cartwright Berriman Pty Limited Lawyers (Plaintiff) Wotton & Kearney (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION TECHNOLOGY & CONSTRUCTION LIST

McDOUGALL J

27 July 2009 (ex tempore – revised 28 July 2009)

55095/07 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOLLONGONG v VERO INSURANCE LIMITED JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 11 and 12 May 2009 I heard a number of separate questions relating to a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant arising from a policy of insurance. For convenience, I incorporate (to explain what follows) [1] of my reasons given on 12 May 2009: On 20 August 2006, a building known as the "NES Hall", which was owned by the plaintiff (the council), was destroyed by fire. The council had the benefit of an industrial special risks policy of insurance (the policy) issued by the defendant (Vero). Vero accepts that it is liable to indemnify the council for the loss of the NES Hall, according to the terms of the policy. The council and Vero are in dispute as to the basis on which the council should be indemnified. 2 The separate questions that I heard, and the answers that I gave, are as follows: 1. Was the recording of the sum of $322,000 in relation to the NES Hall an entry into the accounting or other records of the council as being the value of the property insured for the purposes of insurance within the meaning of the endorsements to the policy section 1? Yes.