Johnson v Triple C Furniture & Electrical P/L

(2010) 243 FLR 336; [2010] QCA 282

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Interference with judge's findings of fact
4. › Functions of appellate court
5. › Where inferences of fact involved
6. › Where facts not in dispute
7. › Whether evidence supported trial judge's conclusion
1. Insurance
2. › Aviation insurance
3. › Claims on policy
4. › Policy exclusion
5. › Operation of aircraft in breach of Civil Aviation Regulations
6. › Whether pilot had satisfactorily completed biennial flight review
7. › Onus of proof on insurer
8. › Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth), reg 5.81
1. Insurance
2. › Claims generally
3. › Refusal
4. › Statutory restrictions on refusal
5. › Whether s 54 Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) applied
6. › Whether failure to satisfactorily complete flight review was an 'omission'
7. › Whether claim was for loss policy did not cover
8. › Whether omission capable of causing or contributing to loss
9. › Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), s 54

Quick Take

A pilot's failure to have satisfactorily completed a regulatory flight review is not an 'omission' within s 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) because satisfactory completion depends on another person's assessment and is not something the pilot can simply omit to do. Section 54 does not operate to convert a claim excluded by a policy (because the aircraft was operated in breach of regulations) into one the policy covers. Where the only evidence of a pilot's flight review history is the absence of an entry in the pilot's current logbook, and the insured adduces no evidence to the contrary despite having the means and motive to do so, the insurer discharges its onus of proving the exclusion applies.