Insurance in MOtion March 2026

Welcome to Insurance in MOtion! We're excited to share the latest insights and updates with you.
April 10 2026

No Looking back: Court Finds That the Six-Year Limitation in s.106 of the SSMA Is Not Retrospective

John Goubran & Associates Pty Ltd ACN 070 974 819 v The Owners – Strata Plan 57150 [2026] NSWDC 9

By Tara Plumbe, Partner and Zara Penklis, Law Graduate

A key clarification for strata disputes: the extension of the limitation period under s 106 of the SSMA does not revive expired claims. However, where a claim was still within time when the law changed, the new six-year period may still apply.

Read more here

Marsh v Greensill Bank: Full Court Reshapes the Hearne v Street Obligation 

Marsh Limited v Greensill Bank AG [2025] FCAFC 186

By Henry Holland, Special Counsel 

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has clarified the scope of the Hearne v Street obligation (also known as the Harman undertaking).

The Hearne v Street obligation stipulates that where one party to litigation is compelled to disclose documents or information, the party obtaining the disclosure cannot, without the leave of the court, use it for any purpose other than that for which it was given unless it is received into evidence.

Read more here

A Fair Go Denied! – Procedural Justice and the Exclusion of Evidence 

Ma v Ashraff [2025] VSC 350

By Emre Ozgezici, Partner and Nick Melios, Senior Associate 

A timely reminder from Ma v Ashraff [2025] VSC 350 that denying a party the opportunity to properly present critical evidence may amount to a failure of procedural fairness. The decision highlights when appellate intervention may be warranted in such circumstances.

Read more here

Failure to Defraud

PBR Properties Pty Ltd v Chubb Insurance Australia Limited [2026] QSC 47

By Bronwyn Ackland, Partner

The Supreme Court of Queensland’s decision in PBR Properties Pty Ltd v Chubb Insurance Australia Limited highlights that insurers may rely on circumstantial evidence, despite inconclusive expert findings, to successfully deny claims involving alleged arson.

Read more here

Court of Appeal Emphasises Need for Precision in Pleadings

St Paul’s College Ltd v Allan [2026] NSWCA 22

By Stuart Eustice, Partner, William Gordon, Senior Associate and Henry Van Til, Graduate Lawyer

The recent New South Wales Court of Appeal’s decision in St Paul’s College Ltd v Allan [2026] NSWCA 22 considers the adequacy of pleading a breach of duty of care in negligence claims. The decision provides useful guidance on the required level of specificity when identifying the precautions said to have been required to avoid a risk of harm.

Read more here

When a Calderbank Offer Is a Genuine Compromise

Lee v Yap (No 2) [2026] VSCA 29

By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Henry Van Til, Graduate Lawyer

The Victorian Court of Appeal has provided useful guidance on when a Calderbank offer framed as a proposal to discontinue proceedings and bear one’s own costs may constitute a genuine compromise for the purposes of enlivening the Court’s discretion to award indemnity costs.

Read more here