Federal Court Dismisses Class Actions for COVID Business Interruption Claims

The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.

The Federal Court has determined that business interruption claims related to COVID-19, involving four insurers, should not proceed as class actions.

This ruling obliges individual policyholders to pursue their cases separately if they wish to proceed.

Justice Michael Lee announced on Friday that proceedings are adjourned pending the issuance of "declassing orders," following arguments from insurers against group actions. Policyholders who had hoped to be part of the class actions will receive notices explaining their rights and options for individual claims.

The legal firms involved, including Gordon Legal and Slater & Gordon, had initiated cases against multiple insurers. Specifically, Gordon Legal filed on behalf of Cody Gemtec Retail t/as the National Opal Collection against Syndicate 2003 at Lloyd’s, and Strand Fitness and others against QBE. Slater & Gordon filed cases for CMC Hospitality against Insurance Australia, and Vicki Field Swim School against Hollard.

An IAG spokesperson welcomed the decision, urging customers with potential COVID-19-related business interruption claims to file those claims individually to facilitate efficient assessment through their standard process. The company also highlighted that a further case management hearing is anticipated and the appeal period remains active, promising updates "at the appropriate time."

James Naughton, a partner at Gordon Legal, told insuranceNEWS.com.au that individuals are encouraged to contact the firm to discuss their options for submitting individual claims against their insurers.

The court had previously ordered that policyholders be notified to register their interest in the proposed class actions, which garnered thousands of responses by a set deadline earlier this year.

Cody Gemtec Retail t/as the National Opal Collection vs. Syndicate 2003 at Lloyd's
Strand Fitness vs. QBE
CMC Hospitality vs. Insurance Australia
Vicki Field Swim School vs. Hollard

John Berrill, the principal of Berrill and Watson Lawyers, clarified that Friday's ruling addresses only the procedural aspect of how claims should be resolved-individual vs. class actions-without commenting on the validity of the claims. He emphasized the importance of policyholders understanding their rights and considering their options promptly since claims linked to the 2020 pandemic lockdowns are approaching the six-year statute of limitations for legal action.

Published:Tuesday, 24th Sep 2024
Source: Paige Estritori

Please Note: If this information affects you, seek advice from a licensed professional.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

ATA Challenges Productivity Commission's Proposal to Double Truck Fuel Tax

01 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Trucking Association (ATA) has expressed strong opposition to the Productivity Commission's proposal to more than double the tax on truck fuel. The plan suggests phasing out fuel tax credits for trucking operators, effectively increasing the fuel tax rate from the current 32.4 cents per litre to 66.1 cents per litre by 2035. - read more

PERILS Revises Loss Estimate for November 2025 Storms in Queensland and NSW

01 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

In a recent update, catastrophe data provider PERILS has increased its insurance industry loss estimate for the severe convective storms that struck Queensland and New South Wales between November 21 and 27, 2025. The revised estimate now stands at AU$2.95 billion, marking an 11% rise from the initial figure of AU$2.663 billion released in January 2026. - read more

Federal Court Denies Truck Driver's Insurance Claim Against Superannuation Fund

01 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

In a recent legal decision, the Federal Court dismissed a truck driver's insurance claim against the Australian Retirement Trust. The case centred on whether the driver had active insurance coverage through his superannuation account, particularly concerning the 'dangerous occupation exception.' - read more