Cook v Sirius International Insurance Corporation Australian Branch - [2020] NSWSC 1631 - NSWSC 2020 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWSC

Cook v Sirius International Insurance Corporation Australian Branch

[2020] NSWSC 1631

Supreme Court of NSW|2020-08-11|Before: Ward CJ

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2020-08-11

Before

Ward CJ

Catchwords

[2011] NSWCA 226 Belhaven & Stenton Peerage (1875) 1 App Cas 278 Berry v CCL Secure Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 27
(2020) 94 ALJR 715 Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
[1938] HCA 34 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
[1984] HCA 7 Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

[2011] NSWCA 226 Belhaven & Stenton Peerage (1875) 1 App Cas 278 Berry v CCL Secure Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 27(2020) 94 ALJR 715 Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336[1938] HCA 34 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521[1984] HCA 7 Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414[1999] HCA 2 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298[1959] HCA 8 Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361[2011] HCA 11 McLennan v Insurance Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 300(2014) 313 ALR 173 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66

Judgment (45 paragraphs)

[1]

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Before me for hearing in August this year was an application by the plaintiffs (Mr and Mrs Cook) against the first and second defendants (Sirius International Insurance Corporation and certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London, to whom I will refer collectively as the Insurers), seeking a declaration that the Insurers were in breach of a policy of insurance in declining indemnity in respect of loss suffered by reason of two fires occasioning damage to certain hotel/motel premises in Cowra on 7 September 2010. It is not disputed that the fires were deliberately lit.

[10]

The fires on 7 September 2010

Coming now to the events of 7 September 2010, at this time, Mr Cook was managing the Hotel business and generally residing in the manager's flat in the Hotel (as will be recalled, the private accommodation at the back of the office to which I have referred above) on the ground floor of the main premises, accessible through the hotel office near the stairs which went up to the function area (and down to the door leading out to the courtyard and maintenance room).
In the very early hours of the morning on 7 September 2010, two fires were lit on the premises: one was in a maintenance room on the lowest level; the other was in a function room on the highest of the three levels (almost directly above the fire in the maintenance room).
As noted above, it is not disputed that the fires were deliberately lit. No accelerant was found to have been used and no electrical fault was the cause of the fires.
At the time that the fires were lit, Mr Cook was physically on the premises and the Insurers point out that there is no direct evidence that anyone else was in the hotel part of the premises at that time (although there were a number of guests in the adjacent motel accommodation).
The hotel premises was fitted with a number of passive infrared sensors (PIR detectors) (which detect movement, not smoke) as well as smoke alarms. Relevantly, there were no PIR detectors upstairs in the function area and there were no PIR detectors in the upper part of the stairwell leading to the function room (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [27]-[28]). There was in evidence a printout of the security company (Custom Security Services, to which I will refer as CSS), recording the activation of the alarms on the premises in the early hours of 7 September 2010. I will return to that evidence in due course.
Mr Cook's evidence is that, on the evening of 6 September 2010 (a Monday), he was on duty working the hotel as manager and bar man; and there was a chef and cook also on the premises as well as a waitress working in the restaurant (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [25]).
Mr Cook explained that Monday nights were generally quiet and there were only ten motel guests staying that night (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [26]).
Mr Cook closed the hotel premises between 9pm and 9.30pm (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [26]). More specifically, in cross-examination, he said that he secured the doors around the premises and activated the alarm at around 9.25pm (see T 55.15-24). Mr Cook says that he activated the burglar alarm system by keying in a code on the keypad located at the entrance to the office. The alarm activation is confirmed by the CSS printout.
Mr Cook says he then retired to bed (see, for example, T 46.15-20; T 55.23). I interpolate to record that it is noted by the Insurers that there is no objective evidence to corroborate this.
At 2.23am on 7 September 2010, a PIR detector detected movement on or near the stairwell (see T 56.50-T 57.1). As adverted to, Mr Cook's understanding is that the PIR detectors detect movement, but not smoke (T 65.50), and I understand this to be the case.
The CSS printout records that an unanswered call was made to the landline telephone number for the Hotel at 2.23.48am (and see T 57.15-24); and that a telephone call was then made to Mr Cook on his mobile telephone (see T 57.25-31). This evidence accords with Mr Cook's affidavit evidence that he was woken at approximately 2.20am on 7 September 2010 by a call on his mobile telephone from CSS advising that they had a report of an alarm on the stairwell (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [29]). (The closest landline telephone to Mr Cook's room was the reception or office.)
That mobile telephone call lasted one minute from 2.24.44am to 2.25.44am (see T 57.42-50). Again, I interpolate to record that the Insurers here point out that Mr Cook could have been anywhere in the Hotel with his mobile telephone when he answered this telephone call.
After Mr Cook received that telephone call, his evidence is that he went to the office and turned off the alarm (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [30]). The CSS printout records that the alarm was turned off at 2.26am (see also T 58.3).
Mr Cook's evidence is that he then walked down the stairs to the doors at the bottom to ensure that they were locked (those doors leading from the reception to the courtyard of the motel). Mr Cook says that those doors (when locked) could be opened from the inside and outside by key only and that he did not go outside because the doors were locked (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [30]; T 59.9-18). Mr Cook says that he walked back up the stairs, that he checked the fire doors in the reception foyer and they were locked, that he checked the side exit doors and they were locked, that he then walked into the bistro area and checked to see if the deck doors were open (they were closed) and that he looked towards the outer area of the restaurant and did not see anything unusual (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn 10 June 2018 at [31]). Mr Cook's evidence was that he was able to look outside, including at the workshop doors, and did not see anything unusual (see, for example, T 59.28). Again, I interpolate to note that the Insurers say that there is no objective evidence to corroborate this.
Mr Cook's evidence is that he walked back to his room, went to the toilet and then went to bed; that he lay there for some minutes trying to get to sleep and then realised that he had forgotten to re-set the alarm so he got out of bed again, went down to the office and re-set the alarm and then returned to bed (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [32]). The CSS printout records that Mr Cook did not reactivate the alarm for 16 minutes until 2.42am (see T 58.29-33). As to this, I interpolate to note that the Insurers say that Mr Cook's evidence as to what happened in this period of time should be rejected.
At 2.48am, multiple PIR sensors detected movement on the ground floor of the Hotel (see T 58.35-42) (bar, bistro and reception areas). CSS again called Mr Cook. His evidence is that he must have "drifted off" after he re-set the alarm because the next thing he remembers is his mobile telephone ringing with another call from CSS with reports of multiple alarms (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [33]). It appears that the multiple alarms were due to the fire in the workshop burning through alarm cables. The Insurers say that this is something that Mr Cook may not have anticipated, though it is not clear what they seek to draw from this.
Mr Cook's evidence is that he got out of bed and went to the reception foyer area, that he could see a large amount of white smoke, that he went through the reception door and called the fire brigade on 000, that he then went to the motel rooms to the rear of the hotel premises and knocked on each of the doors to get the guests to evacuate and then he moved his car from near the reception area (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [33]). He then gives evidence of assisting the fire brigade in access to the motel courtyard, providing access to the room where the electricity main switch was to disconnect the electricity and went to turn off the gas supply (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [34]). Mr Cook says that, during the course of the morning, he waited outside while the fire brigade put out the fire and during the course of the morning a fire brigade officer informed him that, in addition to the fire in the maintenance room, there was a fire in the upstairs function room and suggested to him that the fire looked suspicious (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [35]).
Mr Cook says that he inspected the damage for the first time on 8 September 2010 (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [38]). He says that he could see that the main damage was in the maintenance room and the dining room of the restaurant (again, which was above the maintenance room). He says that he walked up the stairs and that he noticed that a window on the stairs was open (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [38]). His evidence in cross-examination was that, when he inspected the premises on 8 September 2010, he observed no indicia of forced entry to any door or window (see also T 66.25).
Pausing here, the findings which the Insurers say should be made are that: Mr Cook triggered the alarm outside of his residence so as to attempt (poorly) to conceal his own conduct by implicating an unidentified intruder or intruders; Mr Cook knew that he would receive a telephone call from CSS, to which he responded; Mr Cook was then able to deactivate the alarm system under the pretence of looking around the premises for intruders; and Mr Cook lit both the fires.

[18]

Alleged motive to light the fires

As to motive, the Insurers say that: Cook Investments was in perilous financial circumstances; the plaintiffs had personally guaranteed a substantial debt of Cook Investments (as will be recalled, the $2.61 million owing to the mortgagee, Resimac - see at [4] above); it should be inferred that, by the time that the Hotel was listed for sale in August 2009 (as to which, see at [21]ff above), Mr Cook was aware that the Resimac loan would not be able to be refinanced; and, in any event, by September 2010 it must have been increasingly obvious to Mr Cook that the termination date for the Resimac loan was drawing closer and there was no apparent means by which the loan could be re-paid. The Insurers rely upon the report dated 9 August 2017 of Mr Christopher Ehlers as to the financial position of Cook Investments.
The Insurers say that, on any view of the evidence, the financial position of the Hotel had significantly deteriorated since 19 October 2007, when Cook Investments commenced trading. They say that the financial issues for the plaintiffs started from when the Hotel was purchased for $3.48 million in October 2007 (as to which see above; see also, for example, T 10).
It is noted that, in addition to that purchase price: $190,000 in stamp duty was payable (see T 10.25); $60,000 was due to Resimac for loan fees, which Mr Cook says he paid by transferring his boat to the broker (see T 10.47; T 14.3); and an unknown sum was paid to the solicitors acting on the conveyance (see T 10.50-T 11.4). Therefore, it is said that (although Mr Cook did not accept this in cross-examination) the funds expended in the acquisition of the Hotel were at least $3.73 million.
The Insurers note that Cook Investments (which was incorporated only at the time of the acquisition) did not have any funds to contribute to the purchase, other than loans or funds put in by the plaintiffs (see T 11.34-39).
The Insurers submit that the evidence reveals that funding for the purchase was derived from the following sources: $2.61 million from Resimac, with an interest rate, initially of 10.84%, which later increased, taking the monthly repayments from $15,000 to $23,000 (see, for example, T 12.44-T 13.7; T 29.34-39; T 34.46); by re-finance of the plaintiffs' family home at Glossodia, secured by second mortgage, in an amount of $200,000 (see T 11.40-46); by re-finance of an investment property owned by the plaintiffs at Yeronga in Queensland, secured by a mortgage to Resimac, in an unknown amount (see T 12.23-28); by re-finance of Mrs Cook's parents' holiday home in Tuncurry, New South Wales, in the amount of $190,000 for the payment of stamp duty (see T 10.24-40); and by vendor finance from the proprietor of the Hotel in amount of $240,000 (see T 12.31-39). It is noted that there is an unexplained shortfall in those figures (of some $490,000), there being no evidence as to the source of those additional funds.
The Insurers note that, as at the time of the acquisition of the Hotel, Mr Cook had a police pension in the amount of around $60,000 per annum, which was his only other source of income.
It is also to be noted that, at the time that Cook Investments commenced trading from the Hotel, Ms Joanne Williams was the bookkeeper and she remained in the position of manager and bookkeeper until around December 2010 (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [17]; [52]), when she resigned. Furthermore, Mr Cook says that his chef, Mr Richard Morgan, ceased employment in December 2010 at around the same time and that he and Ms Williams started their own restaurant two days later (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [52]).
Insofar as there appears to be a suggestion in Mr Cook's affidavit (see at [60]) of some misconduct on the part of Mr Morgan and Ms Williams, there was no such accusation made in the course of submissions. Instead, reliance was placed on this evidence as explanation of the issues to which Mr Cook deposed in relation to the accuracy of the accounts. I simply note that it was not suggested that either of the former staff members had anything to do with the fires and there is nothing from which I could make any such finding.
Relatedly, a firm of accountants (Dunn, Kean & Staff) acted as accountants for Cook Investments from the time it commenced trading to the time at which the receiver was appointed (see T 15.16-23).
The Insurers say that the financial position of Cook Investments deteriorated markedly between the financial years ending 30 June 2009 and ending 2010 (see Ex A). In particular, it is noted that: the loss before income tax increased (even not taking into account interest payments which were erroneously recorded) from $149,767.41 to $328,426.45 and, if the interest was correctly taken into account, the loss would be $628,000 (referring to Ex A p 3; T 20.10); the net profit from bar trading decreased from $292,086.28 to $175,184.17 (referring to Ex A p 4); the net profit from the restaurant decreased from $157,004.53 to a loss of $104,177.23 (referring to Ex A p 5); the net profit from the motel rooms increased from $220,959.91 to $252,569.82 (referring to Ex A p 6), but that this relatively modest increase was far less than the decreased profit from bar trading and the restaurant; the net profit from poker machines had increased from $215,414.56 to $225,375.56, but that this was essentially only as a result of taxes decreasing on income derived from those machines (referring to Ex A p 7; T 122.15); most significantly, trade and other creditors had increased from $368,075.07 to $987,300.63 (Ex A p 8); and accumulated losses had increased from $286,703.61 to $615,130.06 (even without taking into account the incorrect application of the interest paid) (referring to Ex A p 12).
The Insurers say that the evidence of Mr Cook (see, for example, T 23.30) that there were "anomalies" in the accounts of Cook Investments (apart from the incorrect treatment of interest payments as capital reductions) should be rejected.
It is submitted that, notwithstanding the imprecise evidence given by Mr Cook of "anomalies" in the MYOB recordkeeping and the fact that the accounts (in Ex A) were not finalised, signed accounts for the relevant period, the figures there recorded are likely to be reasonably reliable because the only "anomaly" identified is the incorrect expensing of interest as principal. The Insurers point to Mr Ehlers' evidence that he reconciled the MYOB figures for 2008 and 2009, finding there was a non-material difference of about 4% (see also T 116.33; T 117.20-27; T 124.3-23).
The Insurers note that, although the 2010 financial report was not finalised, it was prepared by Dunn, Kean & Staff on the basis of MYOB data provided to it by staff employed by Cook Investments (T 22.45-47) and that the relevant 2009 figures in Ex A appear in the company's 2009 tax return (referring to T 16.13; T 124.5-15).
The Insurers say that the fact that Cook Investments had significant creditors as at 30 June 2010 is also further supported by the facts that: as at 25 October 2011, Mrs Cook signed a document in relation to work being carried out by the receivers to the effect that the company owed $108,000 to the Australian Taxation Office in relation to superannuation guarantee charge liability and a further $357,846 to other creditors (referring also to T 25.5); and, by the date of that document, Calliden (as will be recalled, the business interruption insurer - see at [10] above), had paid the company funds which had been used to discharge other creditors (referring to Mr Cook's affidavit sworn 10 June 2018 at [53]; T 25.10-15).
Following from the above, the Insurers contend for a finding that the MYOB data which led to the preparation of the accounts for Cook Investments as contained in Ex A did not contain any material anomalies or errors, apart from the incorrect treatment of payments to Resimac.
Further, it is said that if Mr Cook had been informed by the new bookkeeper, Ms Elder, of such anomalies (see his evidence at T 36.45-49), then Ms Elders could have been called in the plaintiffs' case and/or Mr Cook would have had some form of record supporting his contention. The Insurers call for an inference of the kind identified in Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8 (Jones v Dunkel) to be drawn against the plaintiffs in respect of their failure to call Ms Elder.
In any event, regardless of the precise figures in respect of the loss Cook Investments incurred in the financial year ending 30 June 2010, the Insurers point to the following concessions by Mr Cook during the course of his cross-examination: that the costs in the restaurant had been increasing, which had had a material impact on its profitability (see T 21.19-30); that the company had entered into arrangement to pay $1,000 to discharge a further debt of $95,450 for GST and PAYG tax to the Australian Taxation Office (see T 25.33-39); that the company owed $57,000 to Cowra Council as at September 2010 for unpaid rates and had entered into an arrangement to discharge that debt (see T 26.6-9); that the company was funding purchases on a Westpac credit card, the balance of which was increasing (see T 31.3-27); that the winter of 2010, being just before the fires, was one of the worst winters for trading (see T 31.43-46); that the company was not paying its bills as and when they fell due (see, for example, T 36); and that, as at September 2010, Mr Cook had no other source of funds besides selling the investment property at Yeronga or leasing out parts of the business (see, for example, T 43.49-T 44.5).
In addition, it is said that the Resimac loan statement demonstrates that Cook Investments was not paying its major financier on time after about March 2010 and was incurring penalties as a result.
Further, the Insurers point to the evidence of Mr Ehlers, when shown the error in respect of the application of the interest which had been paid (i.e., attributing the interest as a deductible expense, rather than a reduction in Cook Investments' indebtedness to Resimac), that this further adversely affected the financial position of the company, by increasing its loss for the financial year ending 30 June 2010 from $615,130.06 to $860,000 (see T 125.15-35).
The Insurers therefore say that, by the date of the fires, Cook Investments was, on any view, in severe financial difficulty and, notwithstanding Mr Cook's asserted hopes and expectations concerning leasing parts of the business, there were no realistically reasonable prospects that the business could trade out of that increasingly dire financial position. It is said that, as the person who was running the business on a day to day basis (see particularly T 17.33-35; T 23.44-47), it must have been obvious to Mr Cook that the business was going rapidly downhill and that there was no realistic prospect of it turning around.

[20]

Open window on stairwell

The Insurers say that the findings made in respect of the stairwell window are particularly important as this window is the only possible identified ingress to the Hotel itself which would have enabled third party access to the function room without triggering the alarms on the ground floor level, particularly the PIR near the staircase.
The Insurers say that the single PIR detector activation, as well as the absence of any signs of forced entry at the doors, negates any possibility that an intruder entered through one of the doors located on the ground floor, noting that the PIRs on that floor in the reception, bistro and bar areas were not activated before the workshop fire burnt through the alarm cables. It is said that, if an intruder had entered through any of those doors and gone up the stairs to the function room, then not only would the staircase PIR have activated (as it did - see at [35] above) but at least one other PIR in the reception or bistro areas would also have been activated.
The Insurers say that if (as they contend there should be - see, for example, at [197]ff below) a finding is made that the window was closed as at the time of the fires, that is significant in terms of the circumstantial case that Mr Cook set off the PIR alarm himself by exiting his residence.
The Insurers say that the evidence does not support the plaintiffs' contention that the window located above the stairwell leading up the function room on the southern side of the Hotel was open at the time the fires started. As adverted to, Mr Cook's evidence was that when he inspected the Hotel for the first time on 8 September 2010 he noticed that the window on the stairs was open (see Mr Cook's affidavit sworn on 10 June 2018 at [38]). Relevantly here too, Mr Kinsella, the fire brigade officer who gave evidence in the plaintiffs' case, says that he did not open that window, though the Insurers point out that he was not even aware of it at the time (see Mr Kinsella's affidavit sworn in September 2019 at [5]).
Following, the Insurers say that the evidence against the contention that the window was open is far more compelling. Specifically, they submit that no finding should be made that the window was opened at the time the fires started for the following six reasons.
First, that Mr Cook gave no evidence that the window in question was left unlocked prior to the fire and gave no evidence of anything indicating that it had been forced open. It is submitted that a Ferrcom inference (see Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 (Ferrcom)) should be drawn that no evidence Mr Cook could have given on either of those matters would have assisted the plaintiff's case.
Second, that the photos of the window (including, in particular, of the locking mechanism) show no indication of damage consistent with forced entry and no witness has suggested that there is, or was, any indication of that window being forced.
Third, that Mr Kelly gave unchallenged evidence that the dust and debris deposits on the sill of the window were consistent with the window being closed at the time of the fire (see Mr Kelly's report of 31 May 2017 at [9.6]). It is said that Mr Kelly gives reasons for forming that opinion and that his evidence on this issue should be accepted.
Fourth, that the statement of Senior Constable Sarah Walker supports the conclusion drawn by Mr Kelly, in that Senior Constable Walker states that the window had been opened by the attending fire brigade to allow for air flow (Ex 2, pp 10-11). It is noted that Mr Kelly was aware of that statement when preparing his report (see T 156.33).
Fifth, it is said that the evidence of Mr Kinsella that he did not open the relevant window does not take the matter any further, not least since there were over fifteen firefighters present at the Hotel at the time of the fires (see Ex 3, pp 5-6).
Sixth, that, although there was evidence of people climbing the trellis at the rear of the hotel building in order to access the bistro on the ground floor middle level, there was no evidence of anyone having climbed up to the function room level prior to the fire and there is no evidence of any footprints or other indicia of a person accessing the window across the roof immediately below it. It is noted that Mr Cook's evidence was that, to his knowledge, no one had previously gained access to the Hotel using that route of entry (see T 73.12-14).
As noted (see at [90] above), next is the possibility that the doors to the workshop could be opened by using a flat piece of metal to push back the latch

[21]

Access to the workshop using a flat piece of metal

The Insurers note that the workshop key did not permit access to the Hotel itself. As such, they say that, if their submissions as to the unlikelihood of an intruder having gained access through the staircase window are accepted, the issue of access to the workshop diminishes in importance because it does not explain how both fires were started by anyone other than Mr Cook.
Pausing here, at least on one view, it would be sufficient for the purposes of the Insurers' defence for there simply to be a finding as to the starting of one of the fires by Mr Cook (though, in light of my ultimate disposition, nothing turns on that point). In that regard, I note that there was no attribution of damage as between the different fires. In any event, I accept that, even if the possibility of entry to the workshop raised relevant doubt, there would still be left the issue that the evidence discloses no reasonable possibility that anyone other than Mr Cook lit the other fire (which, it seems, could then be used in reasoning to a factual conclusion as to the identity of the person who started, or assisted in starting, the workshop fire).
The Insurers make three further submissions in respect of the access to the workshop.
First, that there is no evidence as to how long the key behind the bar to the workshop had been missing (see the affidavit of 6 February 2019 of Mr Ronald Burgin, employed at the Hotel as a "handyman", at [12]-[13]). It is said that, without that evidence, it is not possible properly to assess the significance (if any) which attaches to the fact that there was a missing key.
Second, that Mr Cook had a key to the workshop (see Mr Burgin's affidavit of 6 February 2019 at [12]).
Third, that, in respect of the ability of a person to "force the lock", Mr Kelly (an experienced forensic investigator and former detective in the New South Wales Police) gave evidence that the locking mechanism on the workshop door was such that, if the doors were properly secured, metal could not have been placed in the gap to make contact with the mechanism (see particularly T 148.48-T 149.43). The Insurers say that that evidence (based upon Mr Kelly's inspection of the locks and his expertise and experience as a forensic investigator and a policeman) should be accepted.
As noted (see at [91] above), next is that a key to the workshop (usually kept behind the bar) was observed to be missing about a week after the fire.

[25]

Cook v Sirius International Insurance Corporation Australian Branch

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (45 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (26)

Cited By (3)