Australia:
FOStering dissent: Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd
17 December 2012
Hall & Wilcox
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
In our September edition of
Insurable Interest we reported on the Victorian Court of
Appeal's decision in Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service
Ltd, in which it was held that FOS determinations are final and not
subject to judicial review unless there is evidence of fraud or
dishonesty or a lack of good faith by the Ombudsman.
Unsatisfied with this decision, Mickovski has now lodged an
application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The
outcome of the appeal will be of particular interest to those
commonly involved FOS disputes, and we will update you on the
outcome.
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.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Insurance from Australia
Insurance: What it means to be a ‘common carrier’
DLA Piper Australia
The recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Stapley v Towing Masters Pty Ltd (trading as Dynamic Towing) [2009] NSWCA 382, the Court considered what it means to be a ‘common carrier’.
Duty of Care and the "Salient Features" Test
DLA Piper Australia
The NSW Court of Appeal decision in Makawe Pty Limited v Randwick City Council [2009]
NSWCA 412 confirms that in cases of a novel relationship, the duty of care is to be
determined according to a ‘salient features’ test. The decision also deals with the question
of what constitutes pure economic loss and raises the possibility of a new interpretation of
section 44 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
