New HCA Judgments

Two new decisions were handed down today. Still continuing with the French J Court’s welcome practice of unanimity. We'll have the summaries up soon but for now:

Wallaby Grip Limited v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited; Stewart v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2010] HCA 9

This is the second asbestos related case for the year. The case raises some interesting issues of statutory interpretation. It relates to a claim for indemnity against a compulsory insurer. There was no evidence tendered at trial of the scope (ie limited or unlimited) of the indemnity because the insurer had failed to produce the policy document when requested. The insurer then argued that, because there was no proof on the issue of the scope of the indemnity, therefore the policy should be assumed to be limited to the statutory minimum. The Court allowed the appeal. It found that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, once the existence of the contract was established, the insurer had the onus of proof in establishing that the indemnity was limited.

[UPDATE 8/0610: A lamp post summary of the case can now be found here.]

Commissioner of Taxation v Bamford; Bamford v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] HCA 10

This case considers the determination of assessable income, for income tax purposes, of a beneficiary of a discretionary trust. There is discussion of the intersection of the law of trusts and the law of taxation, in the context of the degree to which a trust deed may affect what is considered to be income or “a share” within the meaning of the taxation legislation. The appeal was dismissed. Though the Commissioner was lucky the Court didn’t retract special leave. See this exchange on day two of the hearing:

MR GLEESON: Your Honours, we have provided the Court with two documents which seek to clarify the matter I put yesterday.

HEYDON J: But they are a complete retraction of what you said in the last 15 minutes yesterday.

MR GLEESON: Your Honour, to the extent what I said in that period overstated the Commissioner’s position, I seek to withdraw it. I apologise. The fault is mine, not the Commissioner’s.

HEYDON J: Mr Gleeson, if the Court had known on 2 November 2009, I think it was, that those things were going to be said, there would have been a very strong argument against granting special leave to appeal. Why should not special leave be revoked now?

etc

[UPDATE 20/5/10: A lamp post summary of the case can now be found here.]