On 17 March 2010, the long-awaited Insurance Contracts Amendment
Bill 2010 (Cth) was introduced into the House of Representatives.
The Bill contains numerous and wide-ranging amendments to the
Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) (the Act) in
the first general overhaul of the Act since its enactment in
Briefly, the Bill contains measures relating to:
the duty of utmost good faith
'bundled' workers' compensation contracts
the use of electronic communication for statutory notices and
the powers of ASIC under the Act
disclosure and misrepresentations
remedies for bundled contracts of life insurance
the rights and obligations of third parties, and
the division of proceeds from a recovery action.
One issue that is not addressed in the Bill is the carve-out
under section 15 of the Act for insurance contracts from the
operation of the unfair contracts terms provisions of certain other
laws. On 17 March 2010, Treasury released a discussion paper
Unfair Terms in Insurance Contracts on this issue with
proposed options for consultation with stakeholders. Submissions
closed on 30 April 2010.
On 23 June 2010, the Bill was passed by the House of
Representatives and subsequently introduced into the Senate on 24
June. However, the second reading of the Bill was adjourned in
light of the election being called. The second reading is presently
scheduled to continue when Parliament returns on 24 August.
However, the outcome of the election may impact upon whether the
Bill as presently drafted is considered by the Senate. There is a
chance the Bill may be abandoned by a Liberal government (if
elected) or a newly comprised Labour government following the
We will keep you informed of developments in these important
areas in future editions of the Insurance & Financial Services
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The failure of a party to call a witness does not necessarily give rise to an adverse inference being drawn in accordance with Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. An unfavourable inference is drawn only if evidence otherwise provides a basis on which that unfavourable inference can be drawn.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).