FAI v Interchase Corp Ltd

[1998] QCA 180

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Parties
3. › Joinder of parties
4. › Joinder of defendant's insurer by plaintiff
5. › Whether insurer a necessary or indispensable party
6. › Whether joinder authorised under RSC O.3 r.11
7. › Whether plaintiff entitled to join party against whom plaintiff has no direct claim
1. Insurance
2. › Liability insurance
3. › Professional indemnity insurance
4. › Joinder of insurer by claimant against insured
5. › Whether permitted where claimant not directly entitled to benefit under policy
6. › No direct action statute applicable
1. Estoppel
2. › Issue estoppel
3. › Estoppel between co-defendants
4. › Whether issue estoppel arises where no controversy between co-defendants inter se
5. › Conditions for res judicata between co-defendants
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Declaratory relief
3. › Utility of declaration
4. › Whether declaration as to insurer's liability to insured has utility when sought by stranger to policy
5. › Whether declaration would bind insurer in subsequent proceedings

Quick Take

A plaintiff cannot join a defendant's professional indemnity insurer as a co-defendant under RSC O.3 r.11 (Qld) merely to obtain a declaration as to the insurer's liability to indemnify the insured, where the plaintiff has no direct entitlement under the policy. Any such declaration would lack utility because, in the absence of a controversy between the co-defendants inter se, it cannot bind the insurer in subsequent proceedings. The decision in J.N. Taylor Holdings Ltd v Bond (1993) 59 SASR 432 should not be followed on this point. The broader joinder rules available in South Australia, New South Wales, and England have not been adopted in Queensland.