Bank of Queensland Limited v Chartis Australia Insurance Limited [2012] QSC 319
A recent Queensland decision[1] demonstrates when a court may overlook the seemingly plain meaning of a particular clause to avoid an unbusinesslike interpretation. In this instance, an exclusion clause was held to apply to defence costs despite the clause making no reference to them.
ASIC takes aim
In 2010 the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) instigated proceedings (Barry Doyle and Deanna Doyle as applicants) against the Bank of Queensland (BoQ) in relation to a number of home loan contracts and a mortgage. An amended statement of claim filed in March 2012 sought declarations (namely that BoQ engaged in conduct that was unconscionable) and damages. More…
