Corporate Risk And Insurance Update

Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v Sayers [2007] QSC 390

6 December 2007

This recent decision is important as it:

Identifies the obligations of a claimant to provide authorities directed to a relevant statutory authority; and

Rejects the approach taken by claimants' lawyers to obtain records and provide only extracts that they consider relevant.

Facts

Sayers delivered a Notice of Claim to Australian Meat Holdings (AMH) for a back injury allegedly sustained whilst at work on 5 May 2005.

AMH raised a number of compliance issues in relation to the Notice of Claim, including, the adequacy of the Respondent's authority to Medicare to obtain information. Sayers provided a limited form authority however, Medicare refused to release information on the basis of this authority.

Sayers submitted:

Section 275(7) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act (2003) (WCRA) only requires an authority to be provided which permits the release of relevant information and documents; and

The alternative procedure should be adopted whereby Sayers solicitors filters the Medicare documentation and provides AMH with only relevant material.

Findings (Daubney J)

Sayers was required to sign and return to AMH the authority in Medicare's required format. There is an implied obligation on Sayers to provide an authority to enable AMH to obtain Medicare information referred to in section 257(7).

The alternative proposal of Sayers' solicitors acting as a filter of information received from Medicare is not contemplated by the legislation, and would not fulfil the mandatory requirements of section 257(7).

Daubney J also expressed the view that it was unsatisfactory for a Medicare officer to sift through information to answer a form of limited authority. The only form of authority by which Medicare will release information is one which will result in AMH receiving information that is relevant and irrelevant to the claim.

Article by Jim Gurry, Brisbane

"What Is A Caravan? - Court Looks To Object Of Policy"

Introduction

The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down its decision in Caine v Lumley General Insurance Limited [2008] NSWCA 4 in which it upheld the object or intention of the policy at the expense of a more pedantic interpretation of the policy. This is good news for insurers. However, the insurer in this case may be disappointed by the fact that an "extra costs" provision meant that the insurer ultimately paid more than the intended limit...