18.04.2017

Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd v Withers [2016] NZCA 618

In this appeal Zurich was entitled to rely on a dishonesty exclusion to decline PI cover for an insured’s liability under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA).  The insured, Mark Withers, was an accountant who had acted in breach of certain undertakings.  In reaching this decision, the court placed significant weight on professional accounting standards when assessing whether Mr Withers had acted dishonestly.

As a result, the judgment sum of $1.31m against Zurich was set aside, and judgment was instead entered in favour of the plaintiffs against Mr Withers personally.

Background

The plaintiffs (the Swindles) loaned $3m to the Vintage Group (Vintage). The funds were intended as working capital for Vintage’s wine business but were instead used to repay inter-company loans. Vintage only repaid $380,000 before being wound up, leaving the Swindles out of pocket for $2.62m.  They therefore looked to Vintage’s accountant, Mr Withers, to recover their loss.

It was a condition precedent of the loans that Mr Withers would be a mandatory signatory for Vintage’s costs account, and that account would be used solely to meet production costs.  Mr Withers gave undertakings to that effect.   The Swindles’ claim relied on those undertakings.

The High Court found Mr Withers liable for misleading and deceptive conduct under the FTA for failing to fulfil his undertakings.  However, damages were reduced by 50% to $1.31m for contributory negligence.

Mr Withers looked to his PI insurer, Zurich, to cover his liability.  In the High Court, Zurich’s grounds for declining the claim, including reliance on a dishonesty exclusion, were rejected and judgment for $1.31m was entered against Zurich.  Zurich appealed.

Dishonesty exclusions

The policy contained an automatic extension for liability under the FTA subject to a proviso that excluded cover for liability arising from dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, malicious or intentional conduct.

The policy also included a general dishonesty exclusion for liability “arising out of or connected with any actual or alleged dishonest … act or omission” or “with a reckless disregard for the consequences”.

Zurich relied on this dishonesty proviso and exclusion.

Appeal decision

The court considered that it able to determine on appeal whether these exclusions applied because the “primary facts” were not in material dispute and no question of credibility arose.

The test for determining dishonesty incorporates objective and subjective elements.  In summary, the relevant person is measured against an objective moral standard of what constitutes honest behaviour (the objective element), and they must also have acted with conscious impropriety (subjective element).

In this case, Mr Withers’ explanation that he had misunderstood the undertakings, rather than being dishonest, was not accepted on appeal.  Importantly, expert evidence of professional accounting standards and Mr Withers’ failures to meet those standards was “of singular relevance” in establishing the objective measure of dishonesty.  Particular reference was made to the NZICA Code of Ethics, including its Fundamental Principle of Integrity, which prohibits false or misleading statements.  An experienced accountant in his position, having regard to his role and his professional ethical obligations, would have understood the serious adverse consequence if his undertakings were wrong.

That appears to have been the correct result in a case for breach of an undertaking.  However, assessing dishonesty by reference to professional standards may be more difficult where the insured has breached other professional rules.

Return to Summary Table

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
My cross-lease neighbour wants me to consent to their extension. Can I refuse?
From time to time a cross-lease property owner may be asked by their cross-lease neighbour for their consent to specific matters, such as proposed structural alterations or additions to their neighbou...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
Contract stock edit
I have a land covenant (or an easement) registered on my title that restricts the use of my land. Can I get this removed?
Where land is subject to covenants and easements, owners might find themselves in a position where they are unintentionally or unknowingly in breach of a covenant or easement or have purchased land th...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.