Australia: Insurer entitled to deny indemnity in fraudulent claims case despite the absence of a finding of fraud.

Last Updated: 11 April 2018
Article by Andrew Probert, Damian Clancy and Lachlan Boughton


In Ebraham v AAI Limited t/as GIO Insurance [2018] VCC 18, the Victorian County Court emphasised the stringent proof required under the test in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34 necessary to establish a fraudulent claim within the meaning of section 56 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) (ICA). Although the insurer was ultimately successful because the Court found that the insured failed to reasonably substantiate his claim, the case provides some reminders for insurers and solicitors as to the high threshold of proof required to make out fraud claims and the perils of pleading a fraud case which relies primarily upon the insured's inability to prove its own claim.

In its judgement, the Court drew support from the decision of Sgro v Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd [2015] NSWCA 262 in which the New South Wales Court of Appeal determined that for an insurer to prove an allegation of fraud it must clearly plead and then prove that the insured knowingly made false statements for the purpose of inducing the insurer to pay the claim. (See our earlier article Fraudulent claims case shows difficulties insurers face: Sgro v Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd [2015] NSWCA 262.)

In Ebraham v AAI Limited—and although the Court had significant reservations about the credibility of the insured—in the absence of "clear and cogent evidence" of fraud the Court was not satisfied on the Briginshaw standard that GIO had established that the insured knowingly made false statements to GIO in order to induce a payment under the policy. On this basis, the Court determined that GIO was not entitled to rely on section 56 of the ICA to deny indemnity to the insured.

However, the Court ultimately found in favour of GIO in determining that it was entitled to deny indemnity to the insured on the basis that the insured had failed to reasonably substantiate his claim.


In August 2014, Ebraham arranged a house and contents insurance policy with GIO. In the specified contents section of the insurance proposal form, he listed $136,988 worth of jewellery which his father had allegedly provided to him in Beirut, Lebanon on 27 November 2013 together with a receipt (in Arabic from Samir Jewellery Products, Lebanon). The jewellery apparently represented his share of his father's business and was said to have been subsequently valued by Baghdad Jewellery in Sydney Road, Brunswick to be worth $186,629. No receipt was ever provided for this valuation. Ebraham also said that when he phoned the GIO sales representative to arrange insurance cover, he told them that the relevant jewellery included six snake bracelets that he wanted to insure and was told that as each bracelet was worth less than $10,000, they did not need to be stipulated in the proposal, but would still be insured.

On 31 December 2014, Ebraham was holidaying in Ballarat with his family. He and his family returned home on 1 January 2015 after receiving an SMS alert from their home security system and discovered that their house had been burgled. Ebraham submitted a claim through his insurer, GIO, pursuant to a house and contents insurance policy, for $186,629 in respect of gold jewellery which he alleged was stolen in the burglary. There were no signs of forced entry at the house and the home security system had been disabled without any signs of damage to the cover plate, although some roof tiles had been removed.


The terms of the Policy required, in effect, Ebraham to prove his ownership of the jewellery before a claim would be paid.

GIO declined the claim on the basis that it was made fraudulently. GIO said that it considered that Ebraham had provided false and misleading statements regarding the circumstances of his claim. Accordingly, GIO gave notice of cancellation of the Policy and refused to refund any premium.

The evidence which GIO pointed to as supporting its view that the claim was fraudulent can be summarised as follows:

  1. Investigators employed by GIO were unable to locate any jeweller by the name of Samir Products and the telephone number contained on the Samir Products receipt had never been assigned to anyone.
  2. The Syrian government requires receipts to include the total price in words as well as numerals. The Samir receipt refers to numerals only and therefore did not comply with the mandatory obligations imposed by the Syrian government.
  3. The Samir receipt incorporated details of an association known as "The General Union for Artisans Association in the Syrian Arab Republic/Union of Artisans Association in Aleppo Governorate/Association of Goldsmiths Artisans in the Aleppo Governorate". Evidence from investigators retained by GIO disclosed that no such organisation exists either in trade directories in Syria or via internet searches.
  4. The Samir receipt was issued in the name of Ebraham despite the fact that his father purchased the jewellery. Ebraham claimed that his father had put Ebraham's name on the receipt because the jewellery was for him.
  5. Ebraham does not have any photos of the gold jewellery said to have been stolen. Further, Ebraham said he had not declared any of the claimed items when he returned to Australia with the gold jewellery.
  6. Ebraham had made two previous insurance claims for stolen jewellery, the first in 2009 for $33,155 (which was paid by AAMI), and the second in March 2013 for $333,100 (AAMI paid $318,000 of that claim). Neither of these claims were disclosed to GIO.
  7. It did not appear that a burglary had occurred at all.
  8. Baghdad Jewellery was not a qualified valuer and its valuation report was suspicious.

GIO also said that the Samir receipt did not meet the minimum standards of proof of purchase contained in the Policy.


The issues in the proceeding were as follows:

  1. Was GIO entitled to deny the claim on the basis that Ebraham had failed to provide:
    1. strict proof that the burglary occurred
    2. reasonable proof of ownership of the jewellery said to have been stolen
    3. a valuation by a qualified jeweller or valuer, and
    4. honest and complete information for any claim, statement or documents supplied to GIO?
  1. Was GIO entitled to rely upon sections 13 and 56 of the ICA* to refuse indemnity?
  2. Was Ebraham entitled to rely upon sections 31 and 54 of the ICA** in answer to GIO's denial of indemnity?
  3. Was GIO entitled to cancel the contract of insurance by reason of section 60 of the ICA (which sets out the circumstances in which an insurer may cancel a contract of insurance)?

* Section 13 requires each party to a contract of insurance to act towards each other party in respect of any matter arising under or in relation to it with the utmost good faith. Section 56 provides that where an insured makes a fraudulent claim, the insurer may not avoid the contract but may refuse payment of the claim.

** Section 31 provides, in effect, that where a policy is avoided on the grounds of fraudulent failure to comply with the duty of disclosure and fraudulent misrepresentation, the Court may disregard the avoidance if it would be harsh and unfair not to do so. If the Court exercises that power, it shall allow the Insured to recover the whole or part of the amount that would have been payable had the contract not been avoided as the Court considers just and equitable in the circumstances. Section 54 provides, in effect, that an insurer may only refuse to pay a claim due to some act of the insured after the contract was entered into where it can demonstrate the extent of the prejudice caused to its interests by that act.


The County Court of Victoria found that:

  1. The plaintiff was an unimpressive witness who was argumentative and had convenient lapses in memory when it suited him, and that parts of his evidence stretched credulity. Similar findings were made in relation to Ebraham's brother and wife.
  2. The jeweller of Baghdad Jewellery had no recollection of Ebraham and had no formal qualifications as a jeweller or valuer.
  3. Mr Graham Thomas, Group Business Development Manager from Rime Information Bureau Ltd who is experienced in conducting international investigations, gave evidence that he could not locate any evidence which identified the existence of Samir Jewellery Products.
  4. Ebraham was not entitled to tender in evidence an "affidavit" of his father deposing as to the origin of the alleged jewellery. Whilst Ebraham said that he had lost contact with his father, who had travelled to Damascus at the time of the Syrian civil war, the Court found that Ebraham had not established that his father was not available to give evidence, and was particularly concerned by the fact that Ebraham said that his father could not be located, and yet was somehow able to produce an affidavit from his father which was purportedly sworn in Syria.
  5. GIO had proved that Ebraham had not established his ownership of the alleged jewellery. Specifically, the Court referred to the absence of any record of Samir Jewellery Products and the fact that its alleged receipt was missing a great deal of information required to be contained in that document. Further, the absence of a declaration to Customs or anyone else was evidence weighing against Ebraham in this regard.
  6. Further, Ebraham failed to establish the value of the jewellery. The Court found that Baghdad Jewellery was not a reliable or qualified valuer.

Despite all of those findings, the Court held that GIO was not entitled to refuse to pay the claim pursuant to section 56 as that section required proof that Ebraham knowingly made false statements to GIO in order to induce a payment under the Policy. In order to establish this, the Court considered it necessary for GIO to establish that Ebraham had knowingly made a false statement in respect of either:

  • the burglary
  • ownership of the jewellery and reliance upon the Samir receipt, or
  • the valuation from Baghdad Jewellery

The Court noted its reservations as to Ebraham's veracity, but said that as there were at least some signs of a burglary and break-in, GIO had not proved that Ebraham made a false statement about the burglary occurring.

Further, with respect to ownership of the jewellery, the Court held that notwithstanding the above findings concerning Samir Jewellery Products, it did not mean that it did not exist, and there was no evidence that Ebraham fabricated the receipt or caused someone else to create a false receipt.

Finally, the Court was also not prepared to find that Baghdad Jewellery and Ebraham behaved fraudulently and gave false evidence. Simply put, there was no evidence that Baghdad Jewellery was involved in a fraud.

As a result, the Court held that GIO had not satisfied the stringent requirements of the principles set out in Briginshaw v Briginshaw, as codified in the Uniform Evidence Acts (such as section 140(2) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)), and which include that:

The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding, are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal; and
It is often said that such an issue as fraud must be proved "clearly," "unequivocally," "strictly," or "with certainty" ((1938) 60 CLR 336, 362)


Ebraham argued that the effect of section 54 of the ICA was to prevent GIO from denying his claim as his failure to comply with the ownership condition in the Policy was an act or omission of a kind which section 54 responds. The Court rejected that argument and held that the Policy imposed requirements as to proof of ownership as a condition of GIO granting indemnity which condition was not met. As a result, Ebraham's conduct was properly characterised as a failure to comply with a condition, rather than the commission of an act or omission to which section 54 responds.

The Court also found that even if it was wrong on that matter, then the relevant omission of Ebraham was a failure to tell GIO that he could not prove ownership of the jewellery, which would have entitled GIO to cancel the Policy and reduce its liability to nil.

The Court held that GIO was not entitled to cancel the Policy due to fraud, but was entitled to cancel the Policy as a result of Ebraham's breach of the Policy's requirement that he provide reasonable proof of ownership of the jewellery and its valuation to substantiate the claim.


  1. Allegations of fraud must be clearly pleaded and properly particularised.
  2. The obligation of procedural fairness requires that a person be put on notice of the suggestion that a case is false or fraudulent. A defence which does not adequately plead fraud may preclude the insurer from pursuing such a claim.
  3. In order to rely on a defence under section 56 of the ICA, an insurer needs to plead and prove that a false statement was knowingly made for the purposes of inducing it to pay the claim.
  4. Evidence of dishonest intent will need to be adduced in order to satisfy the threshold requirements to prove fraud.
  5. The insurer will need to establish fraud on the balance of probabilities in accordance with the Briginshaw test (Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336) as codified in the Uniform Evidence Acts (such as section 140(2) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)).
  6. It is unlikely to be sufficient if the insurer relies only on circumstantial evidence. Clear and cogent evidence is necessary to positively prove the fraud.
  7. Insurers and their solicitors must be mindful of the costs risks associated with making allegations of fraud. Where allegations of fraud are made speculatively, the Court's jurisdiction to award indemnity costs or personal costs orders may be enlivened, notwithstanding that the party may have won the case overall.*

*See Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 202; Australian Transport Insurance Pty Ltd v Graeme Phillips Road Transport Insurance Pty Ltd [1986] FCA 85; Chen v Chan [2009] VSCA 233; NIML Ltd v Man Financial Australia Ltd (no. 2) [2004] VSC 510.

Andrew Probert Damian Clancy Lachlan Boughton
Insurance and reinsurance
Colin Biggers & Paisley

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.

Andrew Probert
Damian Clancy
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”

Related Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions