Quach v MLC Limited

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Full Federal Court (Australia)
• Judgment Date: 21 December 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] FCAFC 202
• Date: 21 December 2022

Federal Court of Australia

Quach v MLC Limited [2022] FCAFC 202

Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal from:	Quach v MLC Limited (No 6) [2021] FCA 271 ; Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited (No 4) [2020] FCA 532 Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited (No 5) [2020] FCA 1134 Quach v MLC Limited (No 6) [2021] FCA 271
File numbers:	ACD 20 of 2020 ACD 38 of 2020 ; ACD 2 of 2021ACD 14 of 2021ACD 19 of 2021
Judgment of:	COLLIER, PERRY AND THOMAS JJ
Date of judgment:	21 December 2022
Catchwords:	INSURANCE – appeal from decision of a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia – where appellant submits the respondent had breached s 13 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) – where appellant made a claim for total and permanent disability caused by injury or sickness and claims he is unable to practise in his profession – where appellant had not provided insurer with any medical evidence supporting the claim and had not complied with policy terms - where appellant submits he was not afforded a fair hearing at first instance – where the appellant submits apprehended bias on behalf of the primary Judge – where appellant submits evidence of the respondent was inadmissible before the primary Judge – where appellant submits that the respondent could not establish ‘jurisdictional fact’ in the Court below - appeal dismissed ; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions of a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia – applicable principles - whether decision of primary Judge is affected by sufficient doubt as to necessitate its reconsideration – whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused supposing the decision to be wrong - applications dismissed ; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to adduce evidence not before the primary Judge – rule 36.57 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – section 27 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – applicable principles - whether the evidence had been adduced before the primary Judge would have very probably resulted in a different outcome – whether the appellant was able to demonstrate that he was unaware of the evidence and could not have been with reasonable diligence made aware of the evidence – applications refused ; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of costs order – applicable principles – application dismissed
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Aussiegolfa Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Commissioner of Taxation [2018] FCAFC 122 Australia Bay Seafoods Pty Ltd v Northern Territory of Australia [2022] FCAFC 180 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] 2 QB 484 Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29 Dasma Environmental Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2022] VSCA 248 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1991] FCA 655; (1991) 33 FCR 397 Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited (No 1) [2019] FCA 1194 Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 1322 Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited (No 4) [2020] FCA 532 Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited (No 5) [2020] FCA 1134 Gedeon v Commissioner of the New South Wales Crime Commission [2008] HCA 43 Gunns Finance Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Liquidation) v Sithiravel [2016] NSWSC 1543 Michael Wilson & Partners v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; (2011) 244 CLR 427 National Retail Association v Fair Work Commission (No 2) [2014] FCA 664 Quach v MLC Limited (No 6) [2021] FCA 271 Quach v RU (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 258 Quach v Ru [2019] FCA 2041 Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane [1987] 162 CLR 514; HCA12 Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Ltd [2014] NSWCA 98 Revill v John Holland Group Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 178 Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 5) [2017] FCA 690
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Australian Capital Territory
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	To be Completed for Commercial and Corporations, and IP NPAs
Number of paragraphs:	134
Date of hearing:	22 November 2022
Solicitor for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in-person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr S Donaldson SC with Mr N Olson
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Turks Legal

ORDERS

		ACD 20 of 2020
BETWEEN:	DR MICHAEL VAN THANH QUACH Applicant
AND:	MLC LIMITED Respondent

order made by:	COLLIER, PERRY AND THOMAS JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	21 December 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal filed on 30 April 2020 in proceeding ACD20/2020 be refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

ORDERS

		ACD 38 of 2020
BETWEEN:	DR MICHAEL VAN THANH QUACH Applicant
AND:	MLC LIMITED Respondent

order made by:	COLLIER, PERRY AND THOMAS JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	21 December 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal filed on 13 August 2020 in proceeding ACD38/2020 be refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

ORDERS

		ACD 2 of 2021
BETWEEN:	DR MICHAEL VAN THANH QUACH Applicant
AND:	MLC LIMITED Respondent

order made by:	COLLIER, PERRY AND THOMAS JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	21 December 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal filed on 29 December 2020 in proceeding ACD2/2021 be refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

ORDERS

		ACD 14 of 2021
BETWEEN:	DR MICHAEL VAN THANH QUACH Applicant
AND:	MLC LIMITED Respondent

order made by:	COLLIER, PERRY AND THOMAS JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	21 December 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal filed on 15 March 2021 in proceeding ACD14/2021 be refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32...