2025/00011620
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 11/7/2025 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 2.0 MB) |
| 8/9/2025 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 612.3 KB) |
| 2/10/2025 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 397.2 KB) |
| 17/10/2025 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 533.2 KB) |
INSURANCE – the applicant owns a property at 281 New Canterbury Road, Lewisham, upon which is run a petrol station and mechanics garage (Property), and which is covered by an insurance policy provided by the respondent – in July 2015, the applicant received a notice from the Environmental Protection Agency, which required an upgrade to the control equipment fitted to petrol storage tanks at the Property as part of stage one vapour recovery requirements – in around November 2015, unable to find a suitable contractor, the applicant itself commenced the extensive upgrade works, which included cutting away the existing metal fuel lines and installing new UPP fuel lines – in around April 2016, the upgrade works were completed, the concrete re-laid, and the pumps recalibrated (having been turned off during the course of the upgrade works) – it soon became apparent on recalibration that there were issues with the fuel pumps, the applicant later locating at least 24 small holes in the lines – the applicant concluded this was as a result of malicious damage, and proceeded to lodge an insurance claim with the respondent – the respondent rejected the claim on the basis that the loss or damage did not fall within the policy’s coverage – the primary judge affirmed the respondent’s rejection of the claim, finding, inter alia, that the fuel lines (being below ground) did not fit within the definition of ‘Building’, nor ‘Storage tanks’, and that the alleged damage occurred when the Property remained under construction, and thus excluded from cover – the primary judge also found that the insurer was permitted to refuse to pay the claim by reason of s 54(2) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), to the extent the upgrade works could reasonably be regarded as being capable of causing or contributing to a loss in respect of which the insurance cover is provided – whether primary judge erred in application of relevant principles derived from case law – whether primary judge erred in interpretation of s 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)
Last updated: