Australia: Repaying an insurer? Shaw thing! Bupa Australia Pty Ltd v Shaw

Last Updated: 4 December 2013
Article by Nieva Connell

This article was first published in the Lexis Nexis Australian Insurance Law Bulletin (newsletter) 2013.Volume 29 no 2

The recent decision of Almond J of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Bupa Australia Pty Ltd v Shaw1 provides some useful commentary on the principles of the right of subrogation, the principles of policy interpretation, and the principles that apply when an insurer makes good faith payments under a policy of insurance. The case also dealt with an issue that arose in relation to interpretation of a clause in a Deed of Release that clearly contained a typographical error.

Applying the relevant principles, the court found that the insurer had not lost its right of subrogation; that the policy should be given a narrow, purposive and commonsense interpretation; and (in obiter) that an 1896 decision of the Privy Council in relation to good faith payments by insurers remains good law. In addition, the court found that the drafting error in the Deed of Release should be remedied in favour of the plaintiff, as it provided the most sensible result.

In the end result, Bupa was permitted to recover the whole of the amounts it had paid in respect of an insured.


A Bupa Australia Health Pty Ltd2 (Bupa) insured, Mr Shaw, underwent surgery in September 2005. The surgery, originally to remove a tumour from the lining of the oesophagus, resulted in Mr Shaw undergoing a full gastrectomy, as a result of which he required ongoing treatment.

Mr Shaw claimed hospital and treatment expenses under his Bupa policy. Bupa ultimately paid approximately $340,000 for the benefit of Mr Shaw.

Mr Shaw commenced court proceedings against his surgeon for medical negligence (the negligence proceeding). He sought damages to cover past and future care, as well as damages to cover his medical and like expenses. The claim in relation to medical and like expenses included expenses Mr Shaw had claimed from Bupa.

In order to particularise Mr Shaw's claim in the negligence proceeding, his solicitors, Arnold Thomas & Becker (ATB), wrote to Bupa in March 2010 requesting details of all medical expenses Bupa had paid on behalf of Mr Shaw in relation to the surgery.

Bupa responded a few days later, providing ATB with an itemised list of the relevant expenses paid (the Bupa payments).3 It also asked to be kept informed of the proceeding, as any benefits that related to Mr Shaw's claim would have to be refunded to Bupa in the event that Mr Shaw's claim was successful.

Mr Shaw died on 2 May 2010, following which his wife, as executrix, continued the negligence proceeding on behalf of the estate (together with a joint executor). ATB remained the solicitors in the negligence proceeding.

The negligence proceeding was settled for $400,000 plus party/party costs in December 2011. Bupa was not consulted prior to, or notified of, the settlement. No refund of the Bupa payments was made to Bupa.

Bupa emailed ATB in February 2012, enquiring as to the progress of the negligence proceeding, and was informed by ATB that the proceeding had settled in December 2011 and that "[a]s part of the terms of settlement the Insurer of the [surgeon had] agreed to indemnify [the estate] against repayment to Bupa". The Deed of Release, which was later provided to Bupa, contained a clause to the effect that the surgeon would indemnify the estate in the event of any claim, demand or recovery action by Bupa. ATB recommended that Bupa contact the solicitors for the surgeon's insurer in relation to the refunding of the Bupa payments.

Bupa demanded repayment of the Bupa payments from the estate. The estate denied any liability to repay Bupa. (In practice, the situation was that effectively the insurer of the surgeon became liable to repay the Bupa payments pursuant to the indemnity provided in the Deed of Release, so, although the estate was making the denial, in reality the surgeon's insurer was refusing to refund the Bupa payments.)

Bupa commenced proceedings against the executors of the estate. The solicitors for the surgeon's insurer acted on behalf of the estate in defending the Bupa proceeding, pursuant to the indemnity in the Deed of Release.


The court was effectively called upon to answer the following questions.

  1. Was Bupa entitled to exercise its right of subrogation in respect of the Bupa payments?
  2. If "yes" to question 1, was Bupa's right of subrogation prejudiced by the terms upon which the negligence proceeding was settled?
  3. If "yes" to question 1, was Bupa prevented from exercising its right of subrogation as a consequence of its own conduct?


Bupa argued that it was entitled to exercise its right of subrogation in respect of the Bupa payments. The relevant equitable principles governing the doctrine of subrogation are uncontroversial and well established.4

Bupa argued that the doctrine of subrogation gave it two distinct rights:

  • the right to require Mr Shaw to pursue any rights against a third party, in this case, the surgeon — this right included the right to commence proceedings in Mr Shaw's name to recover the Bupa payments against the surgeon (a right which Bupa did not ultimately seek to exercise itself, as Mr Shaw commenced proceedings in his own name seeking damages including in respect of the Bupa payments, that proceeding later being continued, and then settled, by the estate); and
  • the right to recover from Mr Shaw (or, later, his estate) any amount that was received in respect of the Bupa payments — the rationale of this principle is that Bupa should be compensated for any amount it could not recover against the surgeon in respect of the Bupa payments by reason of the settlement of the negligence proceeding.

The familiar upshot of these two asserted rights is that if Mr Shaw had commenced proceeding against the surgeon seeking heads of damages that did not include the Bupa payments, Bupa could have insisted that damages be sought for the Bupa payments. Alternatively, had Mr Shaw not commenced proceedings against the surgeon, Bupa could have done so in its own name. Further, as Mr Shaw's claim for damages included amounts in respect of the Bupa payments, Bupa was entitled to recover from Mr Shaw's estate any amount it received in respect of the Bupa payments. This right effectively exists as Bupa is estopped from commencing its own proceedings against the surgeon, if the estate has already settled the entire proceeding, including in relation to the Bupa payments. In that respect, Bupa's rights of subrogation would have been prejudiced by the settlement of the negligence proceeding.

The defendants conceded that the Bupa health insurance policy was a policy of insurance, but argued the following.

  • The terms of the policy excluded or modified Bupa's right of subrogation or its exercise.
  • Bupa did not have an obligation to indemnify Mr Shaw under the policy. As such, the Bupa payments must have been paid in error. As there was no requirement to make the Bupa payments by way of indemnification, the right of subrogation did not arise.
  • Bupa's terms provided for recovery of payments made in error within two years of payment. Bupa did not attempt to do so within that period. As such, the payments were no longer recoverable.


The terms of the health insurance policy between Bupa and Mr Shaw were contained in Bupa's Fund Rules. The relevant Fund Rules consisted of General Conditions and Schedules, which set out the benefits payable for particular treatments. It was uncontroversial that an insured's entitlement to payment of benefits was governed by the Fund Rules as in force on the date a treatment was rendered to the insured person.

The Fund Rules included provisions to the following effect.

  • Payments made to a policy holder in error could be recovered by Bupa if it notified the policy holder within two years of the date of payment.
  • Bupa could make ex gratia payments if it wished to do so.
  • Benefits were not payable if the policy holder claimed and received, or established a right to receive, a payment by way of compensation or damages from a third party.
  • Where Bupa believed that the policy holder may have a right to claim compensation or damages, Bupa could require the policy holder to sign an undertaking requiring the policy holder to make a claim for compensation or damages and to include benefits paid by Bupa, with a further requirement that proceeds from the claim were to be reimbursed to Bupa for any benefits that were paid by Bupa. In addition, benefits were not payable in circumstances where Bupa believed that the policy holder may be entitled to payment of compensation or damages from a third party, but had not yet established the right to such payment. The onus was then on the policy holder to establish such a right. If it could not establish a right, Bupa would then pay benefits.
  • Bupa could cease payments where a policy holder established a right to compensation or damages and accepted a settlement, and such settlement included terms specifying that moneys paid were not in respect of past or future expenses with regard to which benefits would otherwise be payable, or part of the claim was abandoned or compromised so that such expenses were excluded or represented a nominal amount only.

It was argued by the defendants that the comprehensive nature of the Fund Rules was such that the Fund Rules formed a code that regulated Bupa's entire rights in respect of subrogation, or else excluded those rights entirely. Further, the defendants argued that the right to recover payments made in error within two years of the date of the payment was inconsistent with the maintenance of the right of subrogation.

Specifically, the defendants argued as follows.

  • As Mr Shaw was someone who "may have a right to claim compensation or damages", Bupa could have required him to sign an undertaking requiring him to make a claim for compensation or damages and to include benefits paid by Bupa in that claim.
  • Bupa was not required to pay any benefits to or on behalf of Mr Shaw in those circumstances until such time as he established that he did not have a right to claim compensation or damages.
  • Unless Bupa obtained an undertaking from Mr Shaw, Bupa had no obligation to indemnify, and any payments already paid by Bupa to the benefit of Mr Shaw were made in error, and therefore only recoverable for a two-year period from the date of each payment.
  • Alternatively, the payments were made by Bupa ex gratia and were therefore irrecoverable.

The defendants had, in fact, admitted the following in their pleadings.

  • The claims were made, and Mr Shaw was paid, pursuant to the terms of the policy, which was valid at all relevant times.
  • The terms of the policy provided that benefits were payable to Mr Shaw to cover the costs of hospital treatment and general treatment.
  • The payments were made pursuant to the terms of the policy and as a consequence of the claims made by Mr Shaw.


Uncontroversially, Almond J found:

An insurer's right of subrogation, whether as a contractual term implied by law, or a right that arises in equity as a necessary incident of an indemnity contract, may be expanded, modified or excluded either expressly or impliedly by the terms of the contract.5 The right of subrogation may be excluded either wholly or in part by express terms or as a result of inconsistency with the terms of the contract.6

It is clear that there are no express terms in the Rules which exclude or waive the right of subrogation.7

In relation to question 1, Almond J further found as follows.

  • The Fund Rules, read as a whole, were consistent with the right of subrogation, and that right (or its exercise) was not therefore excluded.
  • Bupa's contractual obligation to indemnify Mr Shaw was clear.
  • The defendants' argument that the Bupa payments were made in error would require a wide construction of the term "benefits are not payable" where it occurred in the Fund Rules. The effect of such a construction would be to effectively exclude or limit Bupa's prima facie contractual obligation.
  • The principles of construction8 do not support such a limitation being placed on those words when the policy is read as a whole.

The practical effect of the construction sought by the defendants would be that policy holders were dissuaded from later making a claim for compensation or damages, because benefits received under the policy (and already spent) would become immediately reimbursable to the insurer. That outcome cannot have been intended.

  • The Fund Rules in relation to Bupa obtaining an undertaking from a policy holder who may have a claim against a third party were permissive; Bupa was not required to obtain an undertaking as a pre-condition to paying or continuing to pay benefits. As such, Bupa not requiring an undertaking from Mr Shaw after it was informed of the negligence proceeding did not invalidate any payments it made before or after being informed of the proceeding.
  • There was insufficient evidence from which to infer that payments made (either before or after Bupa became aware of the negligence proceeding) were made as a result of an error.
  • Even if the Bupa payments had not strictly been payable under the terms of the policy (which was disputed), Bupa retained a right of subrogation in circumstances where such payments were made in good faith.9 This was true of both the payments made prior to Bupa becoming aware of the negligence proceeding and the payments made after that time. The Canadian decision of Wellington Insurance Co Ltd v Armac Diving Services Ltd10 was distinguished as that case related to a payment made by an insurer in settlement of litigation, rather than as a payment under the insurance policy.

The answer to question 1 — "Was Bupa entitled to exercise its right of subrogation in respect of the Bupa payments?" — was, therefore, "yes".

In relation to question 2, two issues of construction arose. The first question was in relation to whether the settlement sum included or excluded the Bupa payments. The second question was whether the release given by the estate to the surgeon released rights to which Bupa would otherwise have been entitled to enjoy against the surgeon under its right of subrogation.

Almond J further found as follows.

  • The settlement sum of $400,000 included the Bupa payments.
  • While a typographical error existed in the Deed of Release, it was clear under the Deed of Release that the estate released all rights of action that arose out of the surgeon's medical treatment of Mr Shaw, thereby extinguishing any right of subrogation Bupa might otherwise have had.

The answer to question 2 — "Was Bupa's right of subrogation prejudiced by the terms upon which the negligence proceeding was settled?" — was, therefore, "yes".

In relation to question 3, the defendants argued that Bupa elected to not exercise, or waived, its right of subrogation. This argument was raised on the basis of correspondence between Bupa and the solicitors for Mr Shaw, and on the basis that Bupa took no step to intervene and take over the running of the negligence proceeding and, alternatively, on the basis that, upon being notified of the negligence proceeding, Bupa took an inconsistent position as to whether it was demanding immediate repayment of the Bupa payments or whether it was claiming an entitlement to reimbursement out of any settlement.

Almond J found as follows.

  • The correspondence relied upon by the defendants did not demonstrate any election not to exercise its right of subrogation, or any waiver of its right. In fact, Bupa sought to ensure that the estate had regard to Bupa's interests, and made clear that it expected the estate to account to it in respect of amounts recovered from the surgeon. Further, ATB advised Bupa that it would contact Bupa on the day of mediation to discuss any offers made. Had Bupa been on notice that it was likely that the mediation would result in the settlement that it did, there would have been a firmer foundation for an argument that Bupa could have sought injunctive relief, and its failure to do so constituted a waiver.
  • Bupa did not have a right to take over conduct of the proceeding, as the proceeding related to amounts in addition to the amounts that Bupa sought to recover. In those circumstances, according to the principles in Santos Ltd v American Home Assurance Co,11 an insurer cannot take control of a proceeding.
  • Although there was some ambiguity in the terms of the correspondence, Bupa did not demonstrate an inconsistent position and is not prevented from exercising its right of subrogation as a consequence of any conduct on its part.

The answer to question 3 — "Was Bupa prevented from exercising its right of subrogation as a consequence of its own conduct?" — was, therefore, "no".


In a somewhat unusual setting, given that the estate was effectively a front for the professional indemnity insurer of the surgeon, this case provides a useful discussion of the principles of the right of subrogation, the principles of policy interpretation, and the principles that apply when an insurer makes good faith payments under a policy of insurance.

Almond J reminded us that the decision of State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Brisbane Stevedoring Pty Ltd remains good law, as:

It is settled law that an insurer who has paid the amount of a loss under a policy of indemnity is entitled to the benefit of all the rights of the insured in the subject matter of the loss and by subrogation may enforce them. This right of subrogation is inherent in the contract of indemnity.

It is also settled law that an insured may not release, diminish, compromise or divert the benefit of any right to which the insurer is or will be entitled to succeed and enjoy under his right of subrogation. On occasions an attempt by the insured to do so will be ineffective against the insurer because of the knowledge of the circumstances which the person under obligation to the insured may have. On other occasions when the insured's act has become effective as against the insurer, the insured will be liable to the insurer in damages, or possibly, on some occasions for money had and received.12

The defendants' arguments that Bupa had excluded or modified its right of subrogation or its exercise were not accepted.

In addition, Almond J reminded us that, when considering the principles of construction that apply in relation to exclusion or limitation clauses in insurance policies, the comments by the majority in Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd13 remain the touchstone, so that:

The interpretation of an exclusion clause is to be determined by construing the clause according to its natural and ordinary meaning, read in the light of the contract as a whole, thereby giving due weight to the context in which the clause appears including the nature and object of the contract, and, where appropriate, construing the clause contra proferentem in case of ambiguity ... [T]he same principle applies to the construction of limitation clauses.

The defendants' argument that Bupa's payments were made "in error" and were therefore not recoverable would, in the opinion of the court, have given the relevant policy words too wide an interpretation, and were therefore not accepted.

Finally, in accordance with the Privy Council decision in King v Victoria Insurance Company Ltd,14 Almond J accepted Bupa's proposition that where an insurer has accepted a claim made by an insured which the insurer was not strictly obliged to pay under the terms of the policy, upon making the payment, the insurer nevertheless becomes entitled to rely on the doctrine of subrogation, where that payment was intended to indemnify the insured for a risk covered under the policy. Almond J distinguished the Canadian decision of Wellington Insurance Co Ltd v Armac Diving Services Ltd15 on the basis that that case related to a payment made by an insurer in settlement of litigation, rather than as a payment under the insurance policy.


1Bupa Australia Pty Ltd v Shaw (as Joint Executor of Estate of Shaw) [2013] VSC 507; BC201313192.

2Bupa Australia Health Pty Ltd later changed its name to Bupa Australia Pty Ltd.

3By the time it was notified of the negligence proceeding, Bupa had paid approximately $305,000 for the benefit of Mr Shaw.

4See, for example, State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Brisbane Stevedoring Pty Ltd (1969) 123 CLR 228; [1970] ALR 417; BC6900700.

5Woodside Petroleum Development Pty Ltd v H & R–E & W Pty Ltd (1997) 18 WAR 539 at 568–570; (1997) 10 ANZ Ins Cas 61-395; BC9706737 (Anderson J); Woodside Petroleum Development Pty Ltd v H & R–E & W Pty Ltd (1999) 20 WAR 380 at 389–390; (1999) 10 ANZ Ins Cas 61-430; BC9900998 (Malcolm CJ, Pidgeon, Ipp JJ).

6Above, n 5. See also Byrne & Frew v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 at 449; [1995] HCA 24; BC9506439 (McHugh and Gummow JJ).

7Above, n 1, at [17]–[18].

8The principles of construction are well settled. See, for example, Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500; [1986] HCA 82; BC8601387. The principles apply equally to insurance contracts: Australian Casualty Co Ltd v Federico (1986) 160 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 32; BC8601440 and McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd (2000) 203 CLR 579; [2000] HCA 65; BC200007594.

9See King v Victoria Insurance Company Ltd [1896] AC 250.

10Wellington Insurance Co Ltd v Armac Diving Services Ltd (1987) 38 DLR (4th) 462.

11Santos Ltd v American Home Assurance Co (1986) 4 ANZ Ins Cas 60-795 at 74,877.

12State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Brisbane Stevedoring Pty Ltd (1969) 123 CLR 228 at 240–241; (1969) 43 ALJR 456; BC6900700.

13Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500 at 510; [1986] HCA 82; BC8601387.

14King v Victoria Insurance Company Ltd [1896] AC 250.

15Wellington Insurance Co Ltd v Armac Diving Services Ltd (1987) 38 DLR (4th) 462.

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

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”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.