Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MaxnaCarta (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 17 December 2024 (→Case facts: x). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 (Aon v ANU) is a decision by the High Court of Australia (High Court) that redefined the principles for requests made to a court during a case to resolve procedural or temporary issues for changing the formal written documents outliuning the claims or defence of each party in a case, known as pleadings.

Background

Legal context

The High Court had in an earlier decision of Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd decided that when one party in a legal dispute wanted to change their formal written arguments (called pleadings), the most important thing was to ensure fairness and justice between the parties involved. The High Court ruled such changes should mostly be permitted provided they helped the case to reach the correct outcome, provided the other side was compensated for inconvenience through the payment of their costs.

he ultimate aim of a court is the attainment of justice and no principle of case management can be allowed to supplant that aim

— Justices Dawson, Guadron, and McHugh, JL Holdings

This approach mostly disregarded any concerns about how such changes could delay a case or affect the court system more generally. It meant parties could usually delay in making changes, resulting in significant delays and higher costs. Courts did not have the power to reject most requests, despite the potential for disruption or waste of court time. The decision effectively allowed participants in a legal proceeding to amend their pleadings as desired.

The High Court in JL Holdings held that justice between the parties was the most important consideration when considering whether to grant an application to amend pleadings. This encouraged tactical behaviour where parties would delay raising claims or issues with the intent of amending their pleadings without consequence. This caused delays courts struggled to manage, leading to ineffiency, increased court costs, a strain on court resources, and eventually, increased criticism. Justice Finkelstein of the Federal Court of Australia went on to argue JL Holdings had been applied in too many cases where paying costs was not fair and just in the circumstances. He felt the case had unfairly hamstrung courts and felt the decision should be reconsidered, with parties having been treated with excessive lenience. Critics of JL Holdings supported a return to the method adopted prior to the decision, wherea judge was entitled to consider the effect of amending pleadings on court resources and other parties. This approach did not always view the paying of costs as a solution to the issues caused by a last minute amendment.

Case facts

In January 2003, bushfire destroyed property and equipment at Australian National University's (ANU) Mt Stromlo Campus in Canberra. ANU lodged an insurance claim, which was disputed by its insurers on various grounds, including that their liability should be reduced because ANU undervalued certain assets However, all insurers held one common ground of contention: that some of the damage claimed occured to property which was not covered by ANU's policies.

In December 2004, ANU commenced proceedings against it's insurers and AON, its insurance broker, claiming the parties were negligent for failing to advise ANU on these issues.

References

1. Lyons, Alicia (2010). "Recasting the landscape of interlocutory applications: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University" (PDF). Sydney Law Review. 10: 550–551 – via Austlii.
2. JL Holdings (1997) 189 CLR 146, 154.
3. ^ Lyons, Alicia (2010). "Recasting the landscape of interlocutory applications: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University" (PDF). Sydney Law Review. 10: 551 – via Austlii.
4. Lyons, Alicia (2010). "Recasting the landscape of interlocutory applications: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University" (PDF). Sydney Law Review. 10: 550 – via Austlii.
5. Lyons, Alicia (2010). "Recasting the landscape of interlocutory applications: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University" (PDF). Sydney Law Review. 10: 551 – via Austlii.
6. Lyons, Alicia (2010). "Recasting the landscape of interlocutory applications: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University" (PDF). Sydney Law Review. 10: 552 – via Austlii.
7. Grime, Ken. The Abitrator and Mediator https://www8.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ANZRIArbMedr/2011/29.pdf. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
8. Grime, Ken (2011). "Aon Risk Services Australia v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27" (PDF). The Abitrator and Mediator. 29 – via Austlii. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |title= at position 65 (help)