In a December 2024 judgment, the High Court discusses the requirements for a successful application to dismiss a claim due to want of prosecution.
Quoting from the 2014 SCA judgement in Cassimjee v Minister of Finance there are three primary requirements that must be met:
“First, there should be a delay in the prosecution of
This blog was co-authored by William Hayne, Candidate Attorney.
In April 2024 the New York Supreme Court found that non-contracting parties under a construction subcontract were not entitled to the benefit of the insurance policy taken out by the subcontractor because non-contracting did not fall within the terms of the policy.
A worker was injured
In an October 2024 judgement, the Pretoria High Court examined the rejection of an insurance claim following a motor vehicle accident. On 26 December 2016, the claimant was driving his insured sports car when he collided with a wall. He filed a claim with his insurer, which was rejected on the grounds that he had
In this appeal judgment, the court considered what constituted “property damage” under the insurer’s Commercial General Liability insurance policy.
Property damage was defined in two ways:
“a. Physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at
While this recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment is a criminal case, with the onus on the State to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is a reminder for all parties to an insurance transaction of the burden upon the accuser establishing intent to defraud. In civil proceedings the burden of proof is on
In October 2024 the Court of Appeal for Ontaria held that the policyholders did not have to prove their ownership of six pieces of jewellery that were insured and stolen in a bag snatching incident whilst they were on a visit to Vietnam. The insurers, Jeweler’s Mutual, by accepting that there had been no misrepresentation
In this July 2023 appeal judgment discussed here [Meaning of ‘Defect in an Item’ Homeowner’s Insurance (Australia)], the policy in question provided “you must take reasonable precautions to prevent anything which could result in the claim under this policy”.
It was agreed that compliance with the clause was a condition precedent to cover.
In this July 2023 appeal judgment previously discussed here Insurance and reasonable precautions clauses (Australia) | Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot one of the issues for consideration was the meaning of “defect in an item” where the policy provided cover to the insured’s buildings and contents for accidental damage or accidental loss but which excluded
In October 2024 the Constitutional Court held that where there had been a breach of contract and the claimant initially sued for specific performance, the subsequent claim for damages had prescribed because it was not instituted within three years of the date of cancellation of the contract.
A property transaction between two individuals resulted in
Loss of Use and Physical Damage from Business Interruption and Covid (USA)
This Pennsylvanian Supreme Court judgement overturned all of the lower court judgments and found that the insured was not entitled to insurance coverage under the plain and unambiguous language of the policy because his business properties covered did not sustain any physical loss