The plaintiff's claim concerns alleged occupational respirable crystalline silica exposure in the period between about October 2016 and May 2025 while employed by the defendants in various capacities
AAI Limited on risk in relation to the claim made by the plaintiff against the fifth, seventh and tenth defendants
Other insurers also on risk with respect to the claim made by the plaintiff against the fifth and seventh defendants
Quick Take
1Neither the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) nor the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) expressly provides for more than one appearance on behalf of a defendant, or for a defendant to be separately represented for each of its insurers. Order 4A r 5A does not itself confer jurisdiction, and O 18 r 17 must be read together with O 12.
2The court proceeded on the basis, without finally deciding the point, that it has inherent power to permit dual representation of a single defendant where the interests of justice require it. The general rule remains that an insured and its several insurers are not entitled to separate representation merely because different insurers are on risk. Such an order is exceptional and requires full evidence, ordinarily of an actual and unreconciled conflict.
3On the facts, merely 'disparate' or potentially conflicting indemnity and apportionment interests between insurers, raised at an advanced stage of a well-progressed personal injury proceeding shortly before mediation, did not justify the exercise of the discretion to permit separate representation.
