Consideration
34 The granting of dispensation pursuant to s 17C(5) of the Act is a matter of considerable importance and should not be regarded as a matter of course: Challenger Life Limited [2004] FCA 618 at [2]-[3]; Munich Reinsurance Company of Australasia Limited [2004] FCA 1391 at [4]. The plain policy intention is that every affected policyholder should be given a summary of the scheme and an opportunity to make submissions to the Court in respect of it on a confirmation application: The Application of Commonwealth Life Ltd & Anor [2003] FCA 501 at [8]; see also Westport Insurance Corporation, in the matter of Westport Insurance Corporation [2009] FCA 1357 at [38]; HDI-Gerling Australia Insurance Company Pty Limited, in the matter of HDI-Gerling Australia Insurance Company Pty Limited (ABN 16 069 985 196) [2010] FCA 505 at [38]-[39].
35 The application for dispensation in the present case has two aspects.
36 First, there is a very small percentage of affected policyholders for whom MDANI does not have a postal or valid email contact address. It has taken steps to obtain a contact address for these policyholders, without success. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that MDANI has made reasonable efforts in that regard. It seems to me to be a matter of common sense that dispensation should be granted in respect of those policyholders, also bearing in mind the other steps that MDANI will undertake to bring the approved summary to the attention of affected policyholders: see [33] above.
37 Secondly, MDANI proposes to give the approved summary to a very large percentage of the affected policyholders by email, rather than by post. Section 121 of the Act relevantly provides that a document or notice required or permitted to be served on, or given to, a person under or for the purposes of the Act, may be served or given:
in the case of a person other than a body corporate, by serving it personally upon the person or by sending it by registered post to the person at his or her usual or last known place of abode or business, and
in the case of a body corporate incorporated in Australia, by leaving it at or sending it by registered post to the registered office of the body corporate.
Plainly, electronic delivery is not contemplated.
38 I am satisfied that, in the present case, it is appropriate that, to the extent that it might be required, dispensation be granted with respect to s 17C(2)(c) of the Act, read with s 121, in respect of those affected policyholders for whom MDANI has a valid email address or postal address, so as to permit MDANI to give the approved summary in the ways it proposes.
39 With respect to those policyholders for whom MDANI has a valid email address, and who have not opted-out of receiving communication by email, this form of communication has been a customary mode of communication with MDANI. It is also a mode of communication that can be and will be closely monitored by MDANI in the ways I have described. No doubt, at the confirmation hearing, it will be important for MDANI to provide evidence of the ways in which it has monitored the giving of the approved summary by email, to ensure that the Court can be satisfied that effective notice has been given.
40 Further, email will be used for communicating with members of MDAN in relation to the MDAN scheme. Given that a large percentage of affected policyholders are also current members of MDAN (77%), and given that a large percentage of these members will receive communication in relation to the proposed merger by email, it seems desirable that there be consistency in the mode of communication used on that subject-matter.
41 Moreover, although not quantified in the evidence, I am satisfied that there will be real cost-savings by using email as a mode of giving the approved summary, without apparently compromising the effectiveness of its delivery.
42 The remaining affected policyholders represent approximately 9% of those to whom MDANI proposes to give a copy of the approved summary. I am satisfied that it is appropriate and sufficient to give the approved summary to these policyholders by ordinary, pre-paid post. I take into account the process that MDANI will implement for dealing with ordinary mail that is returned, as described in [27]-[30] above. I also take into account, once again, the steps that MDANI will undertake to bring the approved summary to the attention of affected policyholders, as described in [33] above. It will also be important for MDANI to provide evidence at the confirmation hearing of the way in which it has monitored the giving of the approved summary by ordinary, pre-paid post, to ensure that the Court can be satisfied that effective notice has been given.
43 Finally, APRA has been represented at this hearing. It has raised no objection to MDANI's proposals for giving the approved summary or to the conditional dispensation that is sought.