Welcome to our General Insurance Insights Newsletter, bringing you the latest case notes on key judgments from January to March 2026 affecting general insurers in Australia.

McMahon v Balint-Smith [2026] VCC 297

In April 2022, the plaintiff was injured at an off-leash park at McCrae Beach when she was knocked over by a 25kg Groodle that struck her leg as it was running, causing her to suffer a knee injury.

The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant, the dog’s owner, seeking damages in relation to the incident. It was not disputed that the dog caused the plaintiff’s injury. The key issue was whether the defendant was negligent in failing to exercise reasonable management and control over his dog.

At trial, the plaintiff and several witnesses gave evidence that the dog was running at high speed, in an erratic manner, and “not under her owner’s control” in the minutes prior to the incident. Evidence was also given of an earlier occasion at the beach where the dog appeared difficult to control. The defendant denied those allegations and submitted that his dog was well trained, responsive to recall commands and engaged in normal dog play expected in an off-leash area. It was also submitted that, prior to the incident, the defendant had taken his dog to various off-leash dog parks on at least 20 occasions and had not observed any behaviour that caused him “significant concern”. As part of his defence, the defendant relied on the decision of Jolly v Kondos [2022] VCC 1397, which, he contended, involved similar facts, namely a dog colliding with a person in an off-leash dog area.

The Court rejected the defendant’s submissions. It distinguished the cases relied upon by the defendant and emphasised that, even in an off-leash area, dogs must be under effective control. The Court preferred the evidence of the independent witnesses to that of the defendant in relation to the incident and found that the dog was running at speed, without adequate regard to people nearby and, thereby, created a foreseeable risk of injury. The defendant, it was found, had sufficient time to observe the dog’s behaviour and should have recalled or restrained her before the incident occurred.

On those grounds, the Court found the defendant negligent and awarded the plaintiff $481,329 in damages.

Click here to view the full case.

Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS 650567Y v Shangri-La Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 117

The initial proceeding was determined in October 2025 and concerned the State of Victoria’s claim for summary judgment against the second defendant, the director of the first defendant, for the use of non-compliant and combustible expanded polystyrene (EPS) cladding in the construction of a residential apartment building in Clayton.

This proceeding was confined to the determination of a third party claim for indemnity brought by the second defendant against two third parties, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s (Underwriters), under professional indemnity insurance policies (Policies) following their refusal to grant cover.

The Policies were claims made and notified policies and covered “civil liability incurred in [the first defendant’s] conduct of [its] Professional Business“, “Professional Business” included design and design advice in relation to relevant building and construction codes and standards.

The issues before the Court were:

1. Was the second defendant an “Insured” under the Policies?
2. Was there a “Claim” and notification within the relevant periods of insurance?
3. Was the indemnity sought “in respect of any civil liability incurred in their conduct of the Professional Business”?

The Court found:

1. It was intended that the second defendant be an “Insured” under the Policies based on an objective reading of the contract of insurance as a whole, including the certificates of insurance and proposal forms. Additionally, given the second defendant was referred to by name (although not listed as an insured) and in his capacity as the director of the first defendant, the second defendant was a third party beneficiary and entitled to cover under the Policies pursuant to s48 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984.
2. The aggregation clause in the Policies did not effectively render “Claims” notified in later policy years as having been notified in an earlier policy year (which had not occurred). That would defeat the claims made and notified nature of the Policies.
3. The primary proceeding was not a claim “in respect of any civil liability” incurred in the second defendant’s conduct of its “Professional Business”, but was, in fact, founded in the strict liability provisions of s137F of the Building Act, because of the second defendant’s status as a director of the first defendant (as opposed to his provision of any design or advice services). As such, the claim did not fall within the insuring clause.

On those grounds, the Court dismissed the second defendant’s third party claim.

Click here to view the full case.

Eyles v Sydney Skydivers Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 53

The plaintiff was employed as a qualified parachute packer and undertook a free‑fall training course provided by the defendant. As part of the course, he completed two prior solo skydives without incident.

In October 2016, the plaintiff sustained serious injuries to his right leg upon landing after a solo skydive. He commenced proceedings against the defendant alleging negligence, breach of contract and breaches of the statutory guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law, alleging that inadequate instruction during the landing phase of the skydive caused him to land heavily on a gravel runway. The defendant denied negligence, submitting that the injury was caused by the plaintiff’s incorrect landing technique, namely reaching out with his right leg contrary to his training.

The primary judge accepted that the defendant breached its duty of care by permitting the plaintiff to fly over the runway contrary to its operations manual, but found that the plaintiff failed to establish causation. The clear inference available was that the injury was caused by the plaintiff using an incorrect landing technique, not by the surface on which he landed, namely the gravel runway. The claims under the Australian Consumer Law were also dismissed and the defences under ss 16 and 19 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 were held to apply.

On appeal, the plaintiff challenged the primary judge’s findings on causation and the application of the Civil Liability Act 2003 defences. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the primary judge’s findings as to the manner of landing were central and fatal to the plaintiff’s pleaded case. The evidence supported the conclusion that the plaintiff’s injury resulted from his failure to adopt the correct landing technique, not from landing on a gravel surface or any breach of duty by the defendant. The Court also upheld the findings that the relevant harm resulted from the materialisation of an inherent and obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, namely solo skydiving, under the Civil Liability Act 2003. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Click here to view the full case.

Shorland Fisheries Pty Ltd v State of Victoria [2026] VSC 29

The plaintiffs, fifteen commercial abalone licence holders who operated in Victoria’s ‘Eastern Zone’, brought proceedings against the defendant after two seabed Crown leases were granted to ‘MAPA Pearls Pty Ltd’ (MAPA). Those leases provided MAPA with indefeasible title and exclusive possession and, thereby, excluded the plaintiffs from fishing in areas they had previously lawfully accessed.

The plaintiffs alleged that three public servants – two Ministerial delegates who approved the leases and a representative of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (the Department) – owed them a duty of care and had breached that duty by allowing the leases to be granted without any notice being published in accordance with s137 of the Land Act 1958 (Land Act). The plaintiffs argued that this had caused them economic loss for which the State of Victoria was vicariously liable under s23 of the Crown Proceedings Act.

The Court found that all three public servants owed the plaintiffs a duty of care and that duty of care had been breached by them permitting the leases to proceed to approval and registration stages without ensuring the requisite public notice had been given. In doing so, the Court accepted that the plaintiffs were a small, defined and vulnerable class of persons directly affected by the decision to grant the leases, and their economic loss arose directly from MAPA’s exclusive possession which resulted from their grant. The Court found that the State of Victoria, as the overarching body for the Department, exercised complete control over the statutory process, including the s137 step, and recognising a duty was fully coherent with the statutory scheme of the Land Act.

The Court, thereby, entered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, with damages assessed for each of the fifteen plaintiffs individually ranging between $2,000 and $86,000, and totalling $561,000.

Click here to view the full case.

Forrester Management Pty Ltd v AMI Tax Advisory Pty Ltd (trading as ANCO Accounting Services) [2026] NSWDC 13

The second plaintiff (later a director of the first plaintiff) sought tax advice from the first defendant, an accounting firm, including the second defendant, its sole director and an accountant, regarding the purchase of a family home. The third plaintiff was the second plaintiff’s wife.

The second plaintiff alleged that he relied on the second defendant’s advice in establishing the first plaintiff and a discretionary family trust to purchase the property. In doing so, it was alleged that the second defendant failed to advise the second plaintiff of the associated consequences, including that:

1. the property would not be eligible for the Principal Residence Exemption from land tax and the property would incur land tax annually;
2. if sold, capital gains tax (CGT) would apply; and
3. if the property was transferred to the third party, a significant stamp duty liability would arise.

The Court found that:

1. the second plaintiff had relied on the second defendant for professional accounting and tax advice;
2. a competent accountant in the second defendant’s position would have warned of the relevant land tax, CGT and stamp duty implications of the later proposed transfer; and
3. in failing to do so, the second defendant breached his duty of care and an implied term of his contract with the second plaintiff.

In making these findings, the Court accepted the plaintiffs’ expert evidence that proper professional standards required proactive tax advice about the consequences of different ownership structures.

Judgment of $407,193.00 was entered for the second plaintiff against the second defendant.

Click here to view the full case.

Victorian Building Authority v Fall-Armytage [2026] VSCA 32

The respondent purchased a property located in Caulfield South in May 2018. A dwelling had previously been constructed on the property pursuant to a domestic building contract entered into in 2013, with a completion date of November 2014.

After purchase, the respondent discovered several building defects and, following the builder’s insolvency, made a claim under the relevant compulsory domestic building insurance policy as a successor in title. The policy covered “loss or damage arising from a non-structural defect occurring during” a period ending two years after completion. At first instance, the Court held that cover was available to the respondent because the relevant defects occurred within that period (during construction), despite the loss occurring later.

The applicant appealed on the grounds that:

1. “occurring during that period” referred to the loss or damage, not the occurrence of the defect; and
2. a successor in title cannot rely on s9 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (DBCA) to recover for loss or damage suffered by a prior owner to bring the claim within the policy period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and found:

1. the policy required that the loss or damage itself must occur within the relevant period, not merely the defects;
2. the respondent’s loss occurred after he acquired the property in 2018, which was well outside the two-year coverage period for non-structural defects;
3. the relevant Ministerial Order required indemnity for loss or damage occurring during the specific periods, allowing for broader cover – but the policy did not provide that cover; and
4. Section 9 of DBCA allows successors in title to sue as if they were parties to the original contract. However, that does not transfer/assign the loss of a prior owner. The successor in title must prove their own loss.

Ultimately, judgement for the respondent was set aside and the claim was dismissed, except in respect of one defect, which was required to be remitted to the County Court to determine whether the relevant defects were structural in nature (which would attract a longer, six-year coverage period).

This article was written by Ashley Harding, Partner, Madeleine Dashiell, Solicitor and Claudia Albert, Solicitor.