This week’s TGIF considers the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Blakeley v CGU Insurance Ltd [2017] VSCA 378, which confirms the rights of third parties to seek direct access to proceeds of insurance.

The decision confirms that, in certain circumstances, third party creditors can commence proceedings against a defendant and also join the defendant’s insurers to those proceedings.

Summary

The Federal Court of Australia has granted leave to shareholders of a company in liquidation to proceed against the company's insurers under the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW), after an earlier application for leave to proceed against the company was refused.

In June 2017, the New South Wales Parliament introduced the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW Act), designed to clarify the rights of claimants to proceed directly against insurance companies. But in the context of insolvent corporations, has it created more problems than it has solved?

In December 2016 we posted on the NSW Law Reform Commission’s recommendation to replace section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW). Six months later, we can now confirm that section 6 is (finally) dead and herald the new era of the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) (Act). The new Act is now live (from 1 June 2017) and is a welcome clarification of the confusion and ambiguity caused by section 6.

On 1 June 2017 a new law came into effect in New South Wales relevant to liquidators’ rights to directly pursue the insurer of a proposed defendant, taking away significant uncertainty which existed previously because of antiquated provisions in a 1946 act relating to charges over and priorities to those insurance monies.

The new law now provides greater certainty for liquidators in deciding whether to bring proceedings directly against the insurers of directors and officers or indeed of other third parties against whom the liquidators may have claims.

An insured company provided management consultancy services to Akron Roads Pty Ltd. In addition, the managing director of the insured company – Mr Crewe – acted as a director and as chairman, and sometimes as managing director, of Akron.

When we began analysing in depth the possibility of Britain exiting the European Union, 18 months prior to the June 2016 referendum, the HERBERT businessSMITH FREEHILLS consensus w07as very muchSECTION TITLE that Brexit was a remote prospect that either would never happen or not matter.

Fast forward just over two years and the reality could not be more different. In this updated edition of our Brexit legal guide, we take stock of the present situation, summarising the key developments since last year's vote and what is to be expected in the months ahead. 10 33 99

Whether an insured had misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to an insurer that its professional services encompassed directors and officers services.

In Issue

• Non-Disclosure and misrepresentations by insureds
• Consideration of sections 21 and 26 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)

The Background

Year in Review - Australia Law in 2016

Insolvency proceedings can often be a very chaotic and drawn out process. Amidst the flurry of activity undertaken by creditors, liquidators and directors, a question to consider is what happens when we throw an insurer’s rights of subrogation into the mix.

Subrogation

Subrogation is the act of one party (normally an insurer) having standing to prosecute a cause of action in the name of another, where the former has reimbursed the latter for losses.