Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Arbitration of reinsurance disputes in Australia

October 20, 2009/in /by Perry Herzfeld
image_pdfimage_print

In Australia, arbitration clauses in most contracts of insurance (other than marine insurance) are rendered void by s 43 of the federal Insurance Contracts Act 1984.  However, that Act expressly excludes reinsurance contracts.  Accordingly, for many years, practitioners assumed that arbitration clauses in reinsurance contracts were enforceable in Australia.

This changed with the decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd (in liq) v Wallace [2006] NSWSC 1150; (2006) 68 NSWLR 603.  The Court held that s 19 of the New South Wales Insurance Act 1902, which provides that arbitration clauses in insurance contracts do not bind the insured, applied to reinsurance contracts, as there was no express exclusion of reinsurance contracts.  (There is a good summary of this and other remedial provisions in the NSW Act, and further matters arising from the decision in Wallace, in this paper presented by Allens Arthur Robinson partner Michael Quinlan in 2007.)

In light of concerns expressed by practitioners and reinsurers, by the Insurance Regulation 2009, the NSW government has now excluded reinsurance contracts from the remedial provisions of the NSW Act, including s 19.

However, some uncertainty remains.  Section 28 of the Victorian Instruments Act 1958 is an equivalent provision to s 19 of the NSW Act: it allows an insured to institute court proceedings notwithstanding an arbitration clause and reinsurance contracts are not excluded from the provision.  There does not appear to be any case law on this provision.  However, following Wallace, it would apply to reinsurance contracts.  Arbitration clauses in reinsurance contracts governed by Victorian law could therefore still be ignored by reinsureds.  Moreover, it was stated in obiter in Wallace that s 19 of the NSW Act is a mandatory law of the forum.  If this view is correct and applicable to s 28 of the Victorian Act, whatever the law of the reinsurance contract, a reinsured could institute court proceedings in Victoria in the face of an otherwise binding arbitration clause.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Perry Herzfeld https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Perry Herzfeld2009-10-20 11:48:222009-10-20 11:48:22Arbitration of reinsurance disputes in Australia

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
Link to: Conference on Human Rights and Tort Law Link to: Conference on Human Rights and Tort Law Conference on Human Rights and Tort Law Link to: US Court Refuses to Enforce Nicaraguan Judgment Link to: US Court Refuses to Enforce Nicaraguan Judgment US Court Refuses to Enforce Nicaraguan Judgment
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top